The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[ABC2019]

in your Wikipedia article it is well said that most of the extinctions took place at the end of the pleistocene, BEFORE the deglaciation, and indeed was probably probably mainly due to the arrival of homo sapiens - probably more conditions were harsh and the greater their need for resources. It was long before the DO events I told you about.

In this regard, the "fight against CD" is likely to increase the pressure on biomass for a whole host of reasons (plant substitutes for fossils, renewable energy plants having a much greater influence on the territory, etc.) , and will not fix this problem.

In the broad sense, the extinction of the Holocene includes the notable disappearance of large mammals, called megafauna, towards the end of the last glaciation, between the 13th and 9th millennium BC. AD (one of the most famous disappearances is that of the woolly mammoth). Several hypotheses have been put forward, for example a non-adaptation of fauna to climate change or the proliferation of modern humans. These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. A continuum of extinctions has been observed for 13 years. As such, the wave of extinction since the middle of the twentieth century000 is a continuation of that of the Holocene and constitutes only an acceleration.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinctio ... oc%C3%A8ne

The Holocene being the current warm period after the end of the glaciation, of course if you are looking for "Holocene extinction", you will find those ..of the Holocene. But there were also significant disappearances before, in the Upper Pleistocene, when man had already arrived and the glaciation was not yet over. And we were talking about the events of Dansgaard Oschger, I don't know if it is proven that extinctions took place particularly at these times, when we had rather sudden warmings (faster than now) followed by cooling.

[ENERC]

I agree that it is imperative to provide everywhere, that is to say on land as at sea, spaces of different sizes totally forbidden to humans, in order to generate diversified organic reservoirs . The dense and dense hedges were some which are unfortunately still today ruthlessly destroyed.

We can have enormous diversity on land even with small areas. For example, as in the video "garden-forests" where there are only 2 ha and a half with the presence of man. (and the capture of CO2 on this land must be important)

For birds and small animals, no need for large areas prohibited to humans: it works from 1000 m2 of land, provided that it is not just grass with fertilizers cut to the ground, but on the contrary it there are flower beds, fruit trees, a vegetable patch, shrubs and an abandoned area. The best thing is to make a little pond (3m x 3m is largely enough): it will bring back the frogs, the dragonflies. The snake likes it, etc, etc ....
The problem is that the balance is quickly broken by the neighbor farmer who sprays his poisons.

For large species, yes you need large parks.

[GuyGadebois]

For birds and small animals, no need for large areas prohibited to humans: it works from 1000 m2 of land, provided that it is not just grass with fertilizers cut to the ground, but on the contrary it there are flower beds, fruit trees, a vegetable patch, shrubs and an abandoned area. The best thing is to make a little pond (3m x 3m is largely enough): it will bring back the frogs, the dragonflies. The snake likes it, etc, etc ....
The problem is that the balance is quickly broken by the neighbor farmer who sprays his poisons.

For large species, yes you need large parks.

I agree. A small space the size of a "bramble bush" (5 to 10 square meters, for example) is already sufficient to ensure a space of biological freedom. The same goes for hedges.

[ABC2019]

For birds and small animals, no need for large areas prohibited to humans: it works from 1000 m2 of land, provided that it is not just grass with fertilizers cut to the ground, but on the contrary it there are flower beds, fruit trees, a vegetable patch, shrubs and an abandoned area. The best thing is to make a little pond (3m x 3m is largely enough): it will bring back the frogs, the dragonflies. The snake likes it, etc, etc ....

apart from the pond, it's my whole garden

[Paul72]

Another bad news, or is it also a fable?

https://reporterre.net/Le-changement-cl ... oA1w7TIYm0

Global warming is really positive, it is good for the planet ...

[ABC2019]

Another bad news, or is it also a fable?

https://reporterre.net/Le-changement-cl ... oA1w7TIYm0

Global warming is really positive, it is good for the planet ...

There is no estimate of the additional amount of CO2 that it would produce compared to all that is produced, so it is difficult to say if the phenomenon really has significant consequences or not. If that adds up to 1% in total, it doesn't really matter, does it?

[Ahmed]

When the duration of manufacture of a thermometer is greater than the duration of the fever, whatever its outcome, let us drop (sic) the thermometer ...

[Exnihiloest]

...
Global warming is really positive, it is good for the planet ...

Absolutely.
As with global warming, which is supposed to be global, it is globally, at the level of the planet, that CO2 storage must be estimated. But globally the planet is greening again with the increase in CO2, which is therefore beneficial, and regulated.
It becomes pathological this need for selection bias to try to prove to us that everything is screwed up and that we must sacrifice man for the benefit of nature. Nature self-destructs, it is its great force, up to bacteria at sea which begin to attack plastics.

[GuyGadebois]

...
Global warming is really positive, it is good for the planet ...

Absolutely.
As with global warming, which is supposed to be global, it is globally, at the level of the planet, that CO2 storage must be estimated. But globally the planet is greening again with the increase in CO2, which is therefore beneficial, and regulated.
It becomes pathological this need for selection bias to try to prove to us that everything is screwed up and that we must sacrifice man for the benefit of nature. Nature self-destructs, it is its great force, up to bacteria at sea which begin to attack plastics.

"Lie, lie, there will always be something left" ...
In addition, with Tryphon, these are the same lies that run in a loop:
nuclear-fossil-energies / the-fessenheim-closure-an-ecological-fault-t16314-30.html? hilit = regreening # p381494

[Paul72]

Always the fable of regreening ... Definitely, it is pathological. Again: agriculture is not a source of carbon storage, but globally a source of emissions.