Pants-of-dog wrote:Which plants?
All of them.
We are discussing the Arctic here.
Of which you obviously have zero (0) knowledge.
I guess I'll have to hold your hand through this one: How did the carbon get there in the first place? Think hard.
late wrote:The warming was first found by secret govt research, and secret Big Oil research, all the back in the 70s.
Nope. In the 70s, which I am old enough to remember well, it was widely known that the earth had been cooling for decades.
While the theory was heavily attacked, thanks to oil money, it was never supplanted.
What theory, specifically?
Consensus was reached 2 decades ago.
What consensus, specifically?
You can't stop shoveling manure anytime.
The anti-CO2 hysteria campaign is the second biggest scientific hoax in history. The biggest barrier to AI understanding climate is the systematic falsification of temperature data by NASA, NOAA, etc.
It's true, except for 1944.
It's conjecture, except for 1944.
"Now new discoveries suggest that the carbon will escape faster as the planet warms. From the unexpected speed of Arctic warming and the troubling ways that meltwater moves through polar landscapes, researchers now suspect that for every one degree Celsius rise in Earth’s average temperature, permafrost may release the equivalent of four to six years’ worth of coal, oil, and natural gas emissions—double to triple what scientists thought a few years ago. Within a few decades, if we don’t curb fossil fuel use, permafrost could be as big a source of greenhouse gases as China, the world’s largest emitter, is today."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... e-feature/
If atmospheric CO2 and methane were the major factors controlling global temperature (they aren't), higher CO2 and warmer temperatures would still be a net benefit
Welcome to the planet, since you're new here, I'd be glad to give you some introductory lessons.
Sorry, son: unlike you, I actually know some atmospheric physics.