By Jo Nova
NASA has finally studied the LandSat satellite images of vegetation down to 30 metre resolution and discovered with “unprecedented detail” that climate change is a good thing.
The northern boreal forests are the largest terrestrial biome in the world, and it’s warming faster than any other forest type, and loving it.
This is the catastrophe they’ve been warning us about…
Satellite record shows boreal forests expanded 12% and shifted north since 1985
What kind of pollution causes forest growth?
It’s time we got serious about the benefits of CO2.
The analysis revealed that boreal forests both grew in size and moved northward. The forests expanded by 0.844 million km² (a 12% increase) and shifted northward by 0.29° mean latitude, with gains concentrated between 64°N and 68°N. Their work also showcased the capacity of new growth to act as a carbon sink. Young boreal forests (up to 36 years) hold an estimated 1.1–5.9 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) with the potential to sequester an additional 2.3–3.8 Pg C if allowed to mature. Landsat’s long-time series of highly calibrated data allows researchers to study how ecosystems shift over decades, a crucial insight into our changing world.
What’s not to like about CO2: Extinctions are declining, cyclones used to be nastier, floods were worse, Pacific Islands are growing not sinking, and sea levels used to be much higher.
REFERENCE
Min Feng et al, Northward shift of boreal tree cover confirmed by satellite record, Biogeosciences (2026). DOI: 10.5194/bg-23-1089-2026 bg.copernicus.org/articles/23/1089/2026/
Why is it a ‘good’ thing? The lack of understanding about global ecology is astounding
264
Because it’s green , silly.
460
Because it’s green – that’s correct. But it isn’t Green, because it’s a change. In the Green world, all change is bad.
400
I don’t know how there was ecology until we come along to understand it.
We obviously got here just in time.
440
We’re only 4.5 Billion years late.
100
Agreed.
That sort of stupid “thinking” leads to the economy-destroying anti-energy policies that are one of the factors destroying the woke Western world with the notable exception of the United States under TRUMP.
What are people thinking, imagining that humans can change the weather and climate of the entire planet? It’s bizarre.
And it leads to even greater absurdities like Herr Starmer wanting to blot out the sun by injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere.
As well as further absurdities like China being by far the world’s largest CO2 emitter, building two coal power stations per week, while the Left want the rest of us in the stupid countries to freeze in the dark.
680
I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the letter written by Bonhoeffer. It was written about Nazi Germany, but is also a very astute summary of modern man made climate change. The theory that intelligent people become stupid. In Bonhoeffer’s experience, stupidity is not related to intelligence. There some very intelligent people who are stupid and some less intellectually gifted individuals who are anything but stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVrF3LqFtAo
Before the climate alarmists go off against us climate sceptics and try and twist the narrative to mean us, look at the facts – not that facts mean anything to climate alarmists as can be seen in the video. The UNIPCC take a $billion US each year from the likes of you and me. There is no such funding for climate sceptics and, before they go off about big oil money, that is proven to be a red herring and is absolutely nowhere near the money that gets paid to the climate alarmists. Oil companies accounts are audited and they have to account for every dollar spent. The UNIPCC just fritter away your carbon tax dollars with no accountability. Research grants for climate are only awarded to those supporting the climate change narrative. Any contradictory research is just not funded or ignored. I have experienced the wrath of the climate alarmists first hand. I have lost a couple of contracts at tertiary education institutes based on just asking questions about the blind faith in man made climate change. Cancel culture and the aggressive response of the stupid person to having their ideas challenged. The reality is that some of the posters on this site show classic stupidity. Let’s get this clear, I am not saying they are not intelligent, just terminally stupid.
470
why is it a bad thing…?
100
I’m not sure why Jo drew attention to this because it’s observable proof that the climate is warming in northern boreal regions.
One problem is that there is less land further north and trees can’t grow on the Arctic Ocean. Forests can only move so fast, and the climate is changing too quickly. Fire and drought is affecting southern regions and the forest type is changing from boreal to temperate.
Today’s recommended reading is The Tree Line by Ben Rawlence.
252
It isn’t the warmth that is causing the improvement, it’s the CO2. Without this plant food, they would die.
490
That comment is so false it’s laughable. The #1 argument here is that CO2 doesn’t do anything because it’s atmospheric concentration is too small to matter.
CO2 is not the limiting factor, rather it is the limited number of growing days and tree root access through the permafrost.
253
‘ … it’s atmospheric concentration is too small to matter.’
CO2 is a fantastic fertiliser, but doesn’t make the world warmer.
362
Something of an understatement there.
Carbon -based life forms comes to mind.
And without CO2 we wouldn’t breathe.
120
In the 1960s when I was a teenager people were rightly worried about the Sahara Desert spreading south. That movement has halted and the Sahel has been getting greener because of increased CO2 levels. Why shouldn’t increased CO2 levels promote faster growth in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions?
140
I have a botany degree. Co2 IS a limiting factor in plant growth at current atmospheric concentrations.Co2 levels are critically close to those where most plant growth stops at 180-200ppm. In the history of the earth there are not that many times when Co2 has been this low. Increased Co2 makes plants more drought resistant as they can continue to photosynthesize with less water used. Increasing the Co2 while leaving the temperature the same also increases photosynthesis. Co2 levels are still critically limiting plant growth at current levels so your statement is wrong. Go study botany or grow some tomatoes.
50
Hi Jane. It is CO2 no Co2.
As you must know, if your botany extends beyond glasshouse horticulture, [CO2] is actually not the primary limiting factor for growth for most plants. Increasing CO2 can increase plant growth in some circumstances, but this does not refute what I wrote.
It is not an increase in CO2 that is liberating plants in these sub polar forests, it is bioavailability of soil nutrients and water, and warmer temperatures for enzyme kinematics that is of most importance. Happy to see the research that supports what you wrote over what I did.
02
“this does not refute what I wrote”
Are you losing your mind?
You wrote nothing on that thread prior to your comment at 1.16 pm.
Are you claiming to be Simon’s alter ego?
Or have I missed something?
40
Huh? Read the previous sentence
01
Geeeye, you still don’t understand the difference between C4 and C3?
10
Oh good god.
01
Jo has highlighted it as one of the benefits of more CO2. It helps plants flourish and increases their resistance to drought, and reduces the drying of land because plants need less water when they have more CO2.
As for the warming, evidence of warming is only evidence of warming. Not the cause. Jo isn’t arguing there’s no warming. She actually argues from time to time that warming is beneficial because cold is a major cause of death. Heat much less so. Additionally, warming appears to have reduced extinctions and cyclones.
You have to show why more vegetation is a bad thing, why more CO2 is a bad thing. Peter Fitzroy asks why is it a good thing and mocks others understanding of ecology. But no detail of why it’s bad. Just another drive by hit job of no substance.
You can’t simply claim that CO2 is bad because it’s causing catastrophic warming without proving that it is. And how much of the warming is caused by CO2.
390
Read the book. Study the scientific literature. Take a look at Canada and Europe. Total forest biomass is declining because of climate change.
152
This abstract from a recent paper is unambiguous, CO2 has increased biomass in the Macao and HK bay area.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24345-5
162
… which is not in Europe or Canada. Regardless, we all seem to agree that the climate is warming.
230
Of course we all agree that warming is happening, but CO2 is not the cause.
Siberia is interesting.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/223/2023/
162
Copenhagen COP and the delegation from China advised other delegates that two or three warmer periods than now in China records of civilisation resulted in increased food crops and others yields and each period resulted in improved quality of life
190
Can you provide links to what you’re referring to please?
Thanks.
There’s info that says in Europe forestry harvesting increased 49% after 2015.
Also that the biomass has decreased as a carbon sink. Attributed to harvesting and matured vegetation taking up less.
But info on climate change causing a loss of biomass is not obvious.
100
because of salvage due to fire loss, beetle damage, and drought.
015
Simon, Where are the links to the info?
90
In other terrible news possibly attributed to higher CO2 concentrations, Western Australia had record crop yields across many grain species. Oh the tragedy, the humanity… the egg on the faces of climate alarmists.. lol
https://www.graincentral.com/news/giwa-estimate-for-record-crop-settles-on-27-35mt/
30
The climate dictatorship is at the point of cataclysmic economic destruction in Australia.
The new Liberal party leader must know and express that or be totally useless.
50
Biomass doesn’t necessarily decline in a changing climate. The existing tree populations will be replaced by more suitable species.
Fossilised magnolias are found in Britain amongst other genera. This is not a native genus today because the climate was warmer in previous times. Climates have and do change naturally. Continental drift (if you subscribe to the theory) means that some land masses were in warmer latitudes than now, allowing for a completely different ecosystem to today. Hippos once swam in the Thames.
Ice ages are more destructive – There are today only 36 genera of trees native to Europe compared to China where there are only 6 of the world’s temperate genera missing. As the treeline retreated southward only to come up against the barriers of the alps and the Mediterranean sea, plants perished. Other continents, such as North America had north-south mountain ranges which allowed plants to move to more benign climates and re-establish as the ice retreated.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
140
The problem for Simon is that he doesn’t read anything except the SMH (and possibly The Guardian) and also relies on the ABC for information.
“None of them will tell him that Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. ”
Obviously the Earth was warmer than at present. The recent advance is more to do with slight warming and higher fertiliser (i.e. CO2).
150
“Read the book” … read the book/s that I and my kind recommend, ignore all other sources, we are your SINGLE SOURCE OF TRUTH!! Agree with us or else!
ok Jacinta..
10
If you had been paying attention , and reading Rick Wills exposition, you would know why the NH is warming.
Try it : it is not difficult.
100
Is ‘the NH warming’ coz the SH is colding?
Yet more fresh overnight snow on Mt Cook and even the Routeburn Track webcam (north-west of Queenstown) captured fat fluffy snowflakes wafting out of a dull leaden sky 10am-ish.
February used to be known as ‘summer’ once upon a time in these parts – these days tropical lows don’t even form into cyclones, merely masses of moisture mulling southwards to meld into the Roaring Forties which have barely ceased this year, hence today’s 3rd snowfall this month and we’re only halfway through.
Plus crickets have been chirruping at night for weeks, usually a March autumn fall soundtrack on those peaceful pleasant evenings … 2026: The Year Without A [decent] Summer?
[your paddocks be lush green this time of year, fb, or are you in the lee of ‘the hills’ in an easterly? until that southerly comes thru…]
80
Ridiculous amounts of grass this year, mushrooms n January, and I made no attempt at hay -making.
Sold grass several times and made a wee bit of silage just for practice , because there were still two big stacks from last year.
I’m close enough to the hills to get a bit of spillage over the tops when it’s a south easterly which it is mostly.
The thunderstorms yesterday were rolling down the Main Divide so I couldn’t miss.
So every reason to assume that the Break has come early this year, and autumn-saved pasture will be the story this winter.
It could be a long winter though.
We’ll see if this southerly rolls in as the depression out to the N.E. tracks to the S.W. And brings the rain in from the South as predicted.
I’m looking forward to the Southerly to send the blowflies on their way.
30
This might work:-
https://www.ventusky.com/precipitation-map/3-hours#p=-42.6;167.8;3
20
Egads … I thought you believed in the power of certification, but you are recommending Ben Rawlence with a batchelor in Swahili to tell us about … what? Trees or something?!?
Look, I’d rather trust the experts … or at very least someone who has a tiny, tiny idea of what they are talking about. Rawlence is probably a nice guy, but he should stay in his lane … when I need translation from Swahili I will use a cheap online language model.
Here’s a suggestion … why don’t you read “Environment Betrayed” by Ed Krug … better material, written by someone who was really there and knows his stuff and best of all, it’s brief so you don’t need to waste your life reading more than 400 pages of gibberish where an expert in Swahili tells you what he doesn’t know about trees.
20
So is the assertion that slight warming is a bad thing, it’s when civilisation thrived.
140
What’s different this time is the rate of change : https://xkcd.com/1732/
018
The rate of change that is helped along by the Bureau OF Misinformation. ?
120
Seriously, you think or believe that climate change is happening at an unprecedented rapid rate?! Go away and research D-O and Heinrich events. D-O events are rapid warming and Heinrich rapid cooling; in recent times some D-O events caused global temp increases of up to 15C in 50 years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2%20Heinrich%20and%20Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger%20Events%20-%20Final-OCT%202021.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/palo.20042
What is happening in the world today climatically is beneficial and mild. If humans were causing it we should keep doing it.
110
Why are environmentalists so convinced that the perfect ecology existed in the 1980s?
150
That would be the Green Revolution, which was a great success.
In contemporary Africa the Great Green Wall is also highly productive.
22
It’s a great thing if you believe in biodiversity and that global boiling is rubbish; here is incontrovertible proof of the benefit of increased CO2. And speaking of vegetation increased CO2 is also great for crops and feeding people. Based on data from Our World in Data, global agricultural output has grown faster than the population over the last six decades, with food supply increasing significantly despite rising to over eight billion people.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricultural-output-dollars
Only misanthropes, that is greenies, would find this bad.
140
People have to get out of their heads that climate and atmospheric CO2 levels are static.
They naturally change all the time and have done so numerous times including in historic times, e.g. the warm periods of the Minoans, Egyptians, Romans and Medieval climate optima when Civilisation thrived. And 10,000 years ago much of the interior of Australia was forested (or would have been had it not been for continual destructive burning by the inhabitants to keep it open grasslands).
And had CO2 levels not naturally started to increase, we would have been heading for a mass extinction event. Plants and hence nearly all life starts to die below 150-200ppm CO2. We came uncomfortably close to that but then nature corrected itself and it started to increase. Hopefully it will continue to do do until it gets to 800-1000ppm.
410
Too right David. People must get out of their heads that climate and atmospheric CO2 levels are static. They are anything but static.
It seems to me the lack of understanding about natural systems increases proportionately to the declining acceptance of the anthropogenic climate change narrative by an ever increasing number of people worldwide.
170
No-one has ever said climate and atmospheric CO2 were static. The thing is, we now understand how and why both change. Hand-waving and attributing it all to ‘nature’ is just scientific ignorance.
230
No, you don’t understand how and why both change.
Hand-waving and attributing it all to ‘CO2’ is just scientific malpractice.
340
This is the fundamental argument, industrial CO2 doesn’t warm the planet, there are natural cycles which determine climate.
Each of these cycles run for around 400 years and then the earth system flips into a warmer or cooler phase. I fancy a caveat is in order, but you’re obviously not really interested in climate change so I won’t bother.
162
garbage.
based on your logic, unless you subscribe to the theory that ALL climate ‘change’ is man-made, there must be an element of naturally-occuring change.
yes?
ok…
now, if naturally-occuring change is a given, and we are being told by climate ‘scientists’ that mankind is causing some change, then they must be able to quantify and measure the change that we are causing, against the naturally-occuring change.
yes?
ok…
if that is the case, then the climate ‘scientists’ should be able give us the percentages of how much WE are changing the climate and the exact measurements used to get that figure.
if you can’t do that, then there is no evidence that we are causing any change at all.
30
yes. When all the natural change has been accounted for, the change in energy balance remains and is totally explainable by a rise in [CO2]. That is where we are. Earth scientists measure and estimate all sources of change, not “if” as you wrote.
so yes they can. That is what everyone with any knowledge of the subject is debating. Why are you commenting if you didn’t know this?
04
So where is this Unified General Theory of Climate Change that is being used to calculate the residual human caused fraction?
How many terms are in this equation, and how do we know that there are no other terms(factors)?
Can you give me a link to it?
20
Huh? Why are demanding such a thing. Relevance.
02
Green is good.
220
Eaten preferably
90
There are the remains of ancient tree stumps in the Arctic, wooden, not petrified, so not TOO ancient.
How do you think they got there?
https://macleans.ca/news/this-mysterious-arctic-tree-stump-could-reveal-ancient-secrets/
280
Again during the warmer Holocene optimum Boreal forests advanced up to the Arctic circle for thousands of years and then retreated by 3 K to 4 K thousands of years ago.
Temps then were 2 c to 7 c higher than today and co2 levels were about 280 ppm. Here’s the link to the 2000 international MacDonald study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589499921233
180
The first sentence should be “up to the Arctic coastline” not the Arctic circle.
50
So additional CO2 means more trees. And trees are up 12%. So why isn’t CO2 down 12%? Once you admit trees have zero impact on CO2, you have to admit terrestrial sources and sinks have zero effect on CO2. The entire basis of Net Zero is wrong.
350
And it’s the basis of many CO2 sequestration scams to plant trees to purchase “carbon” credits.
290
As 98% of CO2 is in the oceans, atmospheric levels of CO2 are based on one parameter only. Ocean temperature. It that so hard to understand?
300
Not difficult for a scientist to understand, but …
… very difficult to understand if your pay cheque depends on you not understanding.
240
And your wealth creation schemes
120
And your wealth creation schemes
40
Bewdy!
We’re gunna need all that wood for Drax and similar power plants!!
Tony.
370
Lake Erie in the USA is almost completely covered with ice so far in 2026.
Here’s the data from NOAA and the last time was in 1996.
Just proves that the World is still a big place and we can have heatwaves in Australia and dangerous cold weather in the USA and parts of Europe etc in 2026.
Perhaps we should think again and dump net zero ASAP?
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/glicd.php
270
That’s an easy one for any counterfactual alarmist …
It’s only so cold because it’s so hot.
And just wait until it’s hot again. Then bad stuff will really start to happen.
Like … umm well I can’t say exactly but it’s going to be the worst EVAAAH!
130
In an insane world, a sane man has to act insane to appear sane to the insane… or sumpfink.
In Gordon Lightfoot’s masterpiece, there’s nary a mention of ‘ice’ when The Wreck Of The Edmond Fitzgerald went down, yet half-a-century later she’s all froze under, Cap’n.
What was that area buried under 2 miles of frozen water called again – the Laurentide Ice Sheet?
80
It’s amazing how the media bury inconvenient stories. For example the project 1988 to 2014 in which Australia was a participant. Nothing has been heard of it since. And it shows the boom in Arboreal(snow) forest but also across the planet. Often in very dry areas.
Trees only need three things (apart from tiny trace elements), CO2, sunlight, H2O. And as this NASA report showed, the growth in dry areas is dramatic. So the factor pushing rapid tree/plant growth is CO2.
So how does anyone explain the explosive plant growth with no obvious connection to reducing CO2 levels which are roughly linear while ’emissions’ grow exponentially.
Net Zero is not science. It never was. As for converting DRAX in the UK from coal to American wood pellets, the idea that the planet can tell the difference is absurd. It’s all political science, not real science. At enormous cost.
320
And trees are relatively new, no more than 500 million years. CO2 is not new. So who turned all the ancient CO2 into oxygen? Phytoplankton. CO2 +H2O+sunlight creates hydrated CO2, carbohydrate. Terrestial life came much later and it should be no surprise that the largest forests are in the ocean.
I have read that phytoplankton provide 50% of all O2 by consuming CO2. With a lifespan measured in days, not the decades of trees, phytoplankton respond almost immediately to higher CO2 levels. We have watched this entire process with Australian bushfires and have seen all the CO2 disappear into the Pacific ocean.
But we are told fossil fuel CO2, alone from all source of CO2 like wood chips, does not get absorbed let alone immediately. But all the evidence of rapid, massive, worldwide CO2 exchange is just in front of our eyes. And still we are told also there are two types of CO2. CO2 from old plants is deadly. And the ocean can tell. I would say that you couldn’t make this stuff up, but I would be wrong.
I fail to find any science in Climate Scientology. Maybe General Zod would know more and Thetans like Tom Cruise.
240
And where are the school teachers, the university scientists, the CSIRO, the Chief Scientist? Why are we still being told a major environmental problem is ‘deforestation’ across the planet. Why are we told that CO2 does not go into the ocean, when we drink carbonated water all the time. A single litre of Coca Cola at a pressure of 2.5 atmospheres (+1.5) holds 6 litres of CO2! And ocean pressures go up 1 atmosphere for each 10 metres. The real wonder is that there is any Co2 in the air at all. Without atmospheric CO2, no terrestial plants would grow at all! And life on land would cease.
But somehow fossil fuel CO2 is the declared destroyer of our world by no less than the United Nations. So which real scientist really believes that? Or that growing trees, the basis of Australia’s legislated Carbon Credits will reduce atmospheric CO2?
How can a government legislate something which has no basis in fact? And our salaried, thousands and thousands of public servant career scientists do not say a thing?
270
Higher Thetan.
If you don’t mind.
50
Surely Tom Cruise would be a lower Thetan?
30
It depends on how much money you pay.Higher Thetan costs more.
He wouldn’t be short of a quid.
20
And the left leaning media are perfect from spreading propaganda, example being predictions that the US economy is in a hole because of POTUS Trump decisions, today the news that the US economy is in far better shape than had been forecast
170
Another note on the NASA story is that CO2 had increased between 1988 and 2014 by 14%. And tree cover had increased 14%. Just another pesky coincidence? Or is CO2 the limiting factor, in which case it is exactly what would be expected.
What is also odd is that the aboreal(northerly/snow) forest has increased 12% (1985-2025?). But the planetary forest increase should now be about 21% if just linear. The greening of the planet is actually greater in warmer climes. Another very inconvenient truth.
And overall, these simple facts indicate with some certainty that there is no need to grow trees. Increase CO2 and the trees grow themselves. So much for Australian legislated agricultural carbon credits. Total hogwash.
100
The benefits CO2 gasses bring,
Can make climate-change a good thing,
Such as boreal advance,
With northwards expanse,
As a vast circumpolar green ring.
211
The more trees, Albo, Bowen and Chalmers can swing from them like all the other things apes.
90
I am upset, not surprised, that the new look Liberal party has so obviously even refused to say anything on net zero, carbon credits, man made Armageddon. They will never win power unless they come clean, but possibly at least half the Liberal MPs believe CO2 is a threat to humanity. One of two basic gases from which all life on earth is made, CO2 and H2O. So pollution then.
210
TdeF, we need to help them come clean by communicating directly with MP’s and Senators on a daily basis with information that reinforces climate scepticism and the need to dump net zero et al.
140
I am increasingly of the opinion that politicians do not care what voters think. And even less about the truth. They just want to get elected. At present half the Liberal members are pro Carbon taxes.
Any Liberal leader would follow Jacinta Price. Real solutions for real problems. And Climate Change is not a real problem. It is political science.
140
from Angus Taylor’s email on Friday:
“Australians need an energy policy based on common sense – not Labor’s flawed Net Zero ideology.
We will get rid of Labor’s carbon taxes that are pushing up the cost of food, cars and housing.”
It’s a start.
00
Greening across the entire Australian continent is getting a big boost right now:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-225.03,-26.36,1370/loc=142.823,-23.257
More than half the continent under a monsoon trough.
Who was it said who said Australia will be so hot that the rainfall will not even make it to the ground.
120
” Who was it said who said Australia will be so hot that the rainfall will not even make it to the ground.”
Flannery…. and speaking of Flannery, there’s some falling outside right now.
110
Something for the polar bears to eat when the Greenies force them off meat.
80
Here’s more proof that there is nothing remotely unusual or unprecedented about the rate or magnitude of modern global warming. Pollen Reconstructions show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x greater than modern. It appears to me we are witnessing a Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) event, not just in Greenland but evidently across the globe. What a wonderful thing it would be if the planetary alarmists were hoisted by their own petard.
110
Meanwhile Labor, Greens and Teals
BELIEVE we should destroy thousands of klms of Eastern Australian trees and animals etc so we can build more toxic, unreliable, clueless rubbish like W & S.
Aussie Wind CF just 24% and Solar just 15%. Then replace this rubbish every 15 to 20 years if we’re very lucky.
130
I think the Labor/ Greens/ Teal mob think our “zero-emissions” will be such a beacon of righteousness that other countries will simply send us buckets of money to atone for their climate sins.
50
Too right mate, especially after this:
.
https://gellerreport.com/2026/02/thirty-years-10-trillion-and-absolutely-zero-impact-on-the-climate.html/
130
Perhaps our answer lies here.
CERN Insider Speaks Out: “Something Is Wrong with Reality”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYZ_UrHfNGo&t=24s
Warming causes colding?
Boreal forest once shrinking weren’t?
Could a slight ‘anthropogenic’ change in the mass of a single electron shift us to a slightly different parallel reality?
Do you remember a monocle on the Monopoly Man?
Apparently the company now claims there has never been a monocle.
Do Remember Queen “we are the champions … of the world”.
Apparently in the recording “of the world” is now not there.
The Fruit of the Loom logo apparently never had a cornucopia.
In Star Wars C3PO has always had one silver leg.
120
Earth Cycles, since time began, naturally
50
For those unaware of the role of CO2 and benefits of increased CO2, most of us in the agribusiness sector know about Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation
Twenty years ago I was mocked for my CO2 is the gas of life badge and bumper stickers but ad homs only make you stronger. History and the science are proving we sceptics were right all along.
100
I would amplify with the fact that everything is made from CO2 and H2O and almost nothing else!
People think plants grow from ‘the good earth’ or ‘fertile soil’. No, you can grow the same plant in the air with water and tiny essential minerals. Orchids are grown in handing carbon blocks in high humidity SE Asia.
This was all established four hundred years ago by Jan Baptist Van Helmont. He grew a 74kg willow tree in s pot and by careful measurement
worked out that the soil lost on 57grams. He decided the tree’s weight had come entirely from water. He did not conclude the other half was from CO2, partly because as our defenestrated Prime Minister Tony Abbott said, air weighed nothing. In fact it is the bulk of the weight of the tree.
But politicians have no idea of conservation of mass, physical chemistry or even know what carbon is. So they are waging war on the sixth element of the Periodic Table, because of hearsay, superstition and vast quantities of greed.
Anyone who wants to win the next election in Australia only has to say what everyone knows, that rapid CO2 driven Global Warming Armageddon is a hoax. Surely 38 years is enough to raise doubts?
110
Oi!
What about muh nitrogen.
Organic farmers get all of theirs out of the air.
Clover especially loves it for making protein.
The cows put a fair bit into the soil to keep all the plants happy.
One cow to the acre will deposit in a year the nitrogen equivalent of 15cwt of sulfate of ammonia.
110
In humans nitrogen is high at about 3%. But Woody plants about 0.1% to 3%. Perhaps higher in the grass seeds than in the cellulose. And we eat seeds largely from grasses at least since the appendix atrophied.
20
TdeF, it is way more complex than “everything is made from CO2 and H2O and almost nothing else” Nitrogen is the key and trace elements are the warp and weft in the weave of nature. Overdoing or under doing the nitrogen canresults in trace element deficiencies and there are companies that specialise on plant tissue analysis to determine if the crop is running at optimum. Gone are the days of pumping urea into a crop and hoping for the best. Thirty years ago I attended an industry conference in Adelaide. The fellow sitting next to me on the plane was going to the same conference and was a speaker. he’d discovered the reason for long fallow disease in wheat crops and the importance of mycorrhizae which play important roles in plant nutrition, soil biology, and soil chemistry. These days seed is inoculated with mycorrhizae and precision farming involves way more than air with water and tiny essential minerals.
90
Wow, who would have thought. Increased CO2 leads to better plant growth because it makes the whole photosynthetic pathway more efficient. When plants stomata open they lose less water because they can suck in CO2 more quickly. Hence, better growth. It’s Plant Physiology 101, but don’t tell our resident climate alarmists.
170
Angus Taylor is a spineless idiot.Andrew Clennell exposed him
with ease.
Lefty Clennell made him motherhood and cliche but avoided asking him how.
The climate elephant was completely ignored.
There are no Labor stooges in Hanson’s party.
00
This isn’t a catastrophe, but chopping it all down and throwing it into the Arctic ocean would be. They all need to throw themselves into the ocean, as that would be far more more beneficial to all mankind.
00
This isn’t a catastrophe, but chopping it all down and throwing it into the Arctic ocean would be. They all need to throw themselves into the ocean, as that would be far more more beneficial to all mankind. The Taiga biome is a vast carbon dioxide sink, and damaging it would merely be the work of fools and vandals. The more land plants the more oxygen, though plants in the oceans are a large contributor to Earths oxygen. But they are not `Scientists’ as they clearly have never heard of the great French Chemist Lavoisier, who elucidated the Carbon Cycle in the 18th Century and used to be taught in the lower elementary school grades to children. Putting fools in charge only creates disasters.
00