Yeah, there are definite perks to being a military spouse. Not all perks apply to girlfriends, sorry, but it’s true. That isn’t always because they don’t want to, it just works out that way. Most of my friends work and if they can’t, then they volunteer their time. We came from small town, middle of nowhere Missouri, which most would call not so awesome. They can last anywhere from a few months to over a year. You are there a month, trying to find your way around while driving on the wrong side of the road.
The military won’t acknowledge you exist until you are married, no matter how many kids you have together. We move around a lot and it’s hard to find a good job every time. We get to live in a ton of awesome and not so awesome places. We have free healthcare which means we have babies for free. I can not tell you how many people have asked me that. Sure, the homecoming is nice, but I bet any wife you ask would rather have her husband home than to be worrying about what could happen.
In stark terms, Bangladesh is still gaining land from sedimentation in its rivers’ deltas, has suffered no increase in cyclones, but has benefited from reduced malnourishment to the tune of billions of dollars from higher crop yields as a result of carbon dioxide emissions.1.
This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environ- mental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally.
This enhanced the ear weight of the rice by 37.6% while reducing the growth of a common weed, barnyard grass, by 47.9%, because the faster-growing rice shaded the weeds.
Since 2012, the researchers have pumped extra CO2 into three of six basketball court-sized rings of 80-year-old bush.
This has raised the CO2 concentration in the three plots to about 550 parts per million, up from the ambient level of 400 ppm.
Are these three prominent but very different people right?
Should we at least consider seriously, before we go into a massive international negotiation based on the assumption that carbon dioxide is bad, whether we might be mistaken?