Climate Change examined in this month's National Geographic

In article ,
Uncarollo2 wrote:
There is a whole issue of the National Geographic this month, devoted to the causes and effects of climate change, and how to
mitigate it. For those who are interested in this topic, the articles are positive, not so much alarmist, but hopeful that
things are progressing slowly towards a new energy future.

At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Trees are taking root everywhere. Moss and grass is spreading rapidly.

It appears that plants have been CO2-starved for millennia, and are
thriving once they get more of the stuff.

-- mrr

On 11/6/15 7:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Corn yields are actually reduced by warmer night. Days between
silking and maturity reduced resulting in lower yields.

Many plan species suffer from higher temperatures. Migration to
cooler regions with poorer soils is not good either.



--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:43:07 +0100, Morten Reistad
wrote:

In article ,
Uncarollo2 wrote:
There is a whole issue of the National Geographic this month, devoted to the causes and effects of climate change, and how to
mitigate it. For those who are interested in this topic, the articles are positive, not so much alarmist, but hopeful that
things are progressing slowly towards a new energy future.

At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Trees are taking root everywhere. Moss and grass is spreading rapidly.

It appears that plants have been CO2-starved for millennia, and are
thriving once they get more of the stuff.

Except, of course, for all the plants that do worse with higher CO2
levels, and all the areas where increased temperatures or increased
ice are harming plants.

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:26:29 AM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote:
In article ,
Uncarollo2 wrote:
There is a whole issue of the National Geographic this month, devoted to the causes and effects of climate change, and how to
mitigate it. For those who are interested in this topic, the articles are positive, not so much alarmist, but hopeful that
things are progressing slowly towards a new energy future.

At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Trees are taking root everywhere. Moss and grass is spreading rapidly.

It appears that plants have been CO2-starved for millennia, and are
thriving once they get more of the stuff.

Apparently tourism and off-roading are thriving as well....

I just managed to get a look at that issue:

There is an ad for "small-ship" voyages, train rides and expeditions by private jet...

And an ad showing several fossil-fuel-using vehicles surrounded by fossil-fuel-using dirt bikes and ATVs.

And of course the Germans aren't buying many electrics.

Hypocrite much, NGS?

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:35:01 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/15 7:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Corn yields are actually reduced by warmer night. Days between
silking and maturity reduced resulting in lower yields.


Ethanol subsidies will fix that Real Soon Now.

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:59:51 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:35:01 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/15 7:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Corn yields are actually reduced by warmer night. Days between
silking and maturity reduced resulting in lower yields.


Ethanol subsidies will fix that Real Soon Now.

Just how will ethanol subsidies prevent lower corn yields?

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC, Sam Wormley wrote:


sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

All planets have a specific climate including the Earth.

Planetary climate is determined astronomically by the degree of inclination, Jupiter has an equatorial climate while Uranus has an almost totally polar climate.The Earth with its 23 1/2 degree inclination has a largely equatorial climate with a minor but fairly sizable polar input.

Reasonable people would acknowledge planetary distinctions in terms of climate and what differentiates climate by inclination however this is not a reasonable era and nobody thinks of climate in these expansive terms.

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:50:52 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:59:51 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:35:01 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/15 7:43 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
At least the plants are thriving, everywhere. Every part of the northern
and southern borders with the arctic/semi-antarctic are greening fast.

Corn yields are actually reduced by warmer night. Days between
silking and maturity reduced resulting in lower yields.


Ethanol subsidies will fix that Real Soon Now.

Just how will ethanol subsidies prevent lower corn yields?

Subsidizing something tends to promote more of it.

[Default] On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:05:32 -0800 (PST),
wrote this crap:



Ethanol subsidies will fix that Real Soon Now.

Just how will ethanol subsidies prevent lower corn yields?

Subsidizing something tends to promote more of it.

Total Bull****. Subsidizing something tends promote less use of it.
Consider bus transit or rail transit.

This signature is now the
ultimate power in the universe.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:56:56 -0500, wrote:

Total Bull****. Subsidizing something tends promote less use of it.
Consider bus transit or rail transit.

Can you provide a single example of a case where providing or
increasing subsidies to public transit resulted in a decrease in
usage? That simply makes no sense. If you reduce the cost of use,
you'll increase the usage. Whether it's enough to justify the subsidy
is a policy question, of course. But how could usage possibly go down?