Originally Posted by
PerPurumTonantes
This is what I read in the text of that article:
Each year during the Northern Hemisphere spring, the greening of the planet begins. Trees sprout their leaves, plants grow and vegetation takes hold north of the equator, where nearly 70 percent of Earth’s total land mass lies. As photosynthesis ramps up, plants breathe in carbon dioxide (CO2), and atmospheric levels of CO2 begin to drop. Then in fall and winter, when trees lose their leaves and foliage declines, CO2 levels begin to rise again. This up-and-down sequence creates an annual cycle of minimum and maximum levels of atmospheric CO2.
The problem I see with this explanation is that while 70% of land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, the majority of foliage lies in South America. It's not called "the lungs of the planet" for nothing. And South American, African, and Asian jungle and rainforest is green year round. There is no "winter" or "summer" there. So at least that part is questionnable.
I also don't quite understand how National
Aeronautic and
Space Administration discovered the CO2 levels 500,000 years ago. They cite "Vostok ice core data" as the source, but Vostok station is located at the pole and at high elevation. The atmosphere above the Vostok station is stunningly different from what we breathe. How can that "data" be extrapolated to the entire planet?
This actually proves my point - if NASA wants financing, they must follow the "trends".
And the last but not the least, 95% of plants on our planet (C3 photosynthesis type) would thrive at 1000 ppm CO2. If the current level is 400, they are still not at the optimal. Adding another 300ppm would increase some plants growth up to 49%. So the current situation is actually beneficial for most of the plants.