Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowbagger
The question isn't if they can survive, but how many of them can survive in term of biomass. You'll understand that the biomass in an area of a rainforest is bigger than for the same area of a desert. So, again, in arid places like a desert more water = more biomass.
It might seem logical that an anthropogenic modification of an established condition will have negative effects on an ecosystem, but this is not always true. Clean air could kill the Amazon, researchers say | Environment | Reuters
Also, if the temperature change on a global scale, it will surely change the natural balance within ecosystems. However, new and different balances will take place. These ecosystem might be different, but their values will not. One ecosystem isn't better than another ecosystem, unless maybe we hold an utilitarian perspective, then global warming will create ecosystems of higher values to us. |
You are still missing the point that the plant cover of the desert will create more shade and water than any solar panel. Plus you are still missing the point about organic material storing carbon. A synthetic cover will not create any decomposers. You can not better this with a theory from an amature blog. Why would you want to destroy so much of Mother Earth to save her? That is just foolish when there are so many rooftops and other disturbed areas to use first.
Plus ecosystems do not always collapes if temps go up or down. Exaptive adaptations allow for some flexibility. Most proposals to blanket hundreds of square miles of public lands are not thinking of the potential costs to the climate that will result in the obvious eradicatin of billions of tons of carbon storing biomass. We should be coming up with clean energy that does not eradicate biodiversity. The current so called "green" phase does not even consider this. Very unimpressive.