Could global warming's top culprit help crops?

April 18, 2016, Columbia University
Researchers have introduced artificially heightened levels of carbon dioxide to farm fields, and measured the results on crop production. Here, experimental plots at the University of Arizona's Maricopa Agricultural Center. Credit: Bruce Kimball/USDA

Many scientists fear that global warming will hit staple food crops hard, with heat stress, extreme weather events and water shortages. On the other hand, higher levels of carbon dioxide—the main cause of ongoing warming—is known to boost many plants' productivity, and reduce their use of water. So, if we keep pouring more CO2 into the air, will crops fail, or benefit? A new study tries to disentangle this complex question. It suggests that while greater warmth will reduce yields of some crops, higher CO2 could help mitigate the effects in some regions, unless other complications of global warming interfere.

The study, by 16 researchers from a half-dozen countries, uses newly available crop models and data from ongoing large-scale field experiments. It appears this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"Most of the discussion around climate impacts focuses only on changes in temperature and precipitation," said lead author Delphine Deryng, an environmental scientist at Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the University of Chicago's Computation Institute. "To adapt adequately, we need to understand all the factors involved." Deryng cautions that the study should not be interpreted to mean that increasing carbon dioxide is a friend to humanity—only that its direct effects must be included in any calculation of what the future holds.

Many studies say that as temperatures rise, across the world will suffer as average temperatures become unsuitable for traditionally grown crops, and droughts, heat waves or extreme bouts of precipitation become more common. Agricultural scientists say that losses could be mitigated to some extent by switching crops, developing varieties adapted to the new conditions, or moving some crop-growing regions poleward. But such adaptations pose daunting challenges.

A new study says more carbon dioxide in the air could help mitigate projected damage to crops caused by climate change -- at least for some crops, in some regions. Here, farmers harvest okra in the village of Loulouni, Mali. Credit: Francesco Fiondella/International Research Institute for Climate and Society

Due to human activities, average global levels of have risen by more than a quarter since 1960; they now stand at around 400 parts per million, and are expected to keep increasing, along with temperature. At the same time, experiments since the 1980s have shown that of carbon dioxide in the air helps plants build biomass. The concept is relatively simple; plants take in carbon to build their tissues, and if there is more carbon around, they have an easier time. Leaves take in air through tiny openings called stomata, but in the process the stomata lose water; with more carbon available, they don't have to open up as much, and conserve moisture.

However, much of the initial evidence for so-called CO2 fertilization has come from lab experiments on isolated plants. These do not account for environmental factors that might affect plants even more powerfully in a warming world, including possibly increased insect and fungus attacks. Thus, suggestions that the greenhouse gas itself might prove a boon to crops have aroused deep skepticism.

In 2014, Deryng and her colleagues published the first global calculation of how heat waves might affect crops, and found that maize, spring wheat and soybeans would all suffer. When they added the effects of carbon-dioxide fertilization, they found that maize yields would still go down—but that spring wheat and soybeans might actually go up. Some media misinterpreted the study to say that climate change might help agriculture overall. The picture is much more complicated, say the authors.

The new study looks at how rising temperatures and carbon dioxide along with changes in rainfall and cloud cover might combine to affect how efficiently maize, soybeans, wheat, and rice can use water and grow. It confirms that heat and water stress alone will damage yields; but when is accounted for, all four crops will use water more efficiently by 2080.

Based on the current biomass of these crops, water-use efficiency would rise an average of 27 percent in wheat; 18 percent in soybeans; 13 percent in maize; and 10 percent in rice. All things considered, the study projects that average yields of current rain-fed wheat areas (mostly located in higher latitudes including the United States, Canada and Europe), might go up by almost 10 percent, while consumption of water would go down a corresponding amount. On the other hand, average yields of irrigated wheat, which account for much of India and China's production, could decline by 4 percent. Maize, according to the new projections, would still be a loser most everywhere, even with higher water efficiency; yields would go down about 8.5 percent. The study is less conclusive on the overall effects on rice and soybean yields; half of the projections show an increase in yield and half a net decline.

Deryng says the study is sturdier than past research, because it uses new data from experiments done in actual farm fields, and a half-dozen global crop models, several of which only recently became available. Nevertheless, she says, the uncertainties remain large. Field experiments, which involve blowing CO2 over sizable farm fields for entire growing seasons, have been done only at a handful of sites in the United States, Germany, Australia, Japan and China—not in Africa, India or Latin America, where subsistence farming are mainstays of daily life. She noted that greater yield also might not translate to more nutrition. For example, greater carbon uptake might not be balanced by other nutrients such as nitrogen, and trace elements like zinc and iron that are needed to make crops nutritious.

Bruce Kimball, a retired researcher with the U.S. Department of Agriculture who has studied crop-CO2 interactions, said the paper does "a good job on a huge scale," though, he said, "more data from more crops from more locations" is needed." Kimball cautioned also that previous research has shown that the benefits of higher CO2 levels tend to bottom out after a certain point—but that the damage done by heat only gets worse as temperatures mount. "Thus, for greater warming and higher CO2 the results would likely be more pessimistic than shown in this paper," he said.

Explore further: Future heat waves pose threat to global food supply, study says

More information: Regional disparities in the beneficial effects of rising CO2 concentrations on crop water productivity, Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2995

Related Stories

One crop breeding cycle from starvation

March 29, 2016

In the race against world hunger, we're running out of time. By 2050, the global population will have grown and urbanized so much that we will need to produce 87 percent more of the four primary food crops - rice, wheat, ...

More CO2 also means less nutritious food

June 6, 2014

Rice, maize, soybeans and wheat are the main source of nutrients for over 2 billion people living in poor countries. But with climate change and the rising amount of CO2 in the air we breathe, their already low nutrient value ...

Recommended for you

64 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

philstacy9
1.6 / 5 (19) Apr 18, 2016
"Science is broken."
Especially climate "science".

http://theweek.co...e-broken
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 18, 2016
"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 18, 2016
"It suggests that while greater warmth will reduce yields of some crops, higher CO2 could help mitigate the effects in some regions, unless other complications of global warming interfere."

Over what time period because this is a hugely short-term response. The higher levels of CO2 also have negative impacts on plant yields. So this is clearly in the short-term sweet spot where higher levels of CO2 will increase growth but plants haven't become saturated with CO2.

"Kimball cautioned also that previous research has shown that the benefits of higher CO2 levels tend to bottom out after a certain point—but that the damage done by heat only gets worse as temperatures mount"

Exactly. And this study does not account for that nor the impact of the higher CO2 itself
aksdad
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 18, 2016
Good news leetennant, studies show CO2 increases plant growth up to 1,000 ppm CO2 and beyond. The global average is about 400 ppm now, up from around 280 ppm in the late 1800's.

http://www.esrl.n...ull.html

At the current rate it will take a couple hundred years to reach 1,000 ppm if the population continues to grow and if fossil fuels remain our primary source of energy. However, population growth is predicted to level off and maybe even decline in the next 35 years.

https://en.wikipe...pulation

And technological improvements are already decreasing CO2 emissions in some countries.

http://www.yalecl...issions/

It is only in developing countries where emissions are increasingly dramatically, but they too will eventually transition to more efficient methods of energy production. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 18, 2016
None of these studies take into account plant toxicity. There's no point in lush plant growth we can't eat.
SamB
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 18, 2016
Since climate scientists are global warming's top culprits, how are they going to help crops?
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (20) Apr 18, 2016
Since climate scientists are global warming's top culprits, how are they going to help crops?


I personally blame Einstein for why time travel isn't possible.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 19, 2016
I personally blame your parents for your stupidity.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 19, 2016
I personally blame your parents for your stupidity.


The wit and wisdom of antigoracle, people. Behold in wonder.
lairdwilcox
1.2 / 5 (20) Apr 19, 2016
I've said for years that if we insist in letting the world's population to increase at the rate it is, we will need more carbon dioxide and not less. We should start doing all we can to increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere now and diametrically reverse all environmental and anti-pollution regulations and laws that attempt to reduce carbon dioxide creation and release on earth. We could begin by removing devices that reduce CO2 release on automobiles and manufacturing. We should also do all we can to return to coal power (minus the particle pollution) and other forms of energy that produce C02. The simple fact is that the Millenarian Climate Cultists have been wrong and were so from the outset.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (17) Apr 19, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.

The wit and wisdom of the Chicken Little tard, people. Behold in wonder.
Benni
3 / 5 (22) Apr 19, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.


Have you been so out of touch with reality that you don't know "unicorns" no longer exist? They went extinct with the dinosaurs, but maybe you don't believe that either? How do you propose getting rid of things that don't exist?

Next thing you'll be telling us is that Dark Matter makes up 80% of the mass of the Sun.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (17) Apr 19, 2016
"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.

As a general rule: If you quote Freeman Dyson on climate science you don't know anything about climate science (and Freeman Dyson readily admits that he knows nothing about climate science himself)

So why do you keep quoting him? It's like quoting Ronald MdDonald on fiscal policy.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
All we have to do is take a glance at the last century to see how far removed from reality the AGW Cult is. It's a period in which humanity flourished despite all the doom and gloom false prophesies. In fact, the US became the fattest nation during this period, producing enough food to actually waste over 30%, while it burned more fossil fuels than any other country.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Apr 19, 2016
give it up, anti. Your silly statements here mean nothing.
Zzzzzzzz
3.1 / 5 (21) Apr 19, 2016
I've said for years that if we insist in letting the world's population to increase at the rate it is, we will need more carbon dioxide and not less. We should start doing all we can to increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere now and diametrically reverse all environmental and anti-pollution regulations and laws that attempt to reduce carbon dioxide creation and release on earth. We could begin by removing devices that reduce CO2 release on automobiles and manufacturing. We should also do all we can to return to coal power (minus the particle pollution) and other forms of energy that produce C02. The simple fact is that the Millenarian Climate Cultists have been wrong and were so from the outset.

Perhaps the largest and most delusional tub of rancid lard I've witnessed today.....
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.


Have you been so out of touch with reality that you don't know "unicorns" no longer exist? They went extinct with the dinosaurs, but maybe you don't believe that either? How do you propose getting rid of things that don't exist?

Next thing you'll be telling us is that Dark Matter makes up 80% of the mass of the Sun.


This comment has actually rendered me speechless. I just wanted to highlight it for the LOLs.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.


Have you been so out of touch with reality that you don't know "unicorns" no longer exist? They went extinct with the dinosaurs, but maybe you don't believe that either? How do you propose getting rid of things that don't exist?

Next thing you'll be telling us is that Dark Matter makes up 80% of the mass of the Sun.


This comment has actually rendered me speechless. I just wanted to highlight it for the LOLs.


LOL!!
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 19, 2016
My running unicorn gag was funnier when it wasn't explained but, here we go...

Whenever some random person pops up who claims to know the answer to climate change and complains they've been trying to tell people the "real reason" for years, I point out that they may as well be saying the problem is unicorns. Because their opinion on the issue is just as valid.

Saying the real problem is that we need to increase CO2 levels, or that the globe is really cooling, or it's geothermal vents, or it's the sun or chemtrails, is akin to me saying the real problem is unicorn rainbow farts.

You can say anything you want. The only thing that is valid when it comes to this issue is the science.

Also, reading and English comprehension. That helps too.
Benni
3 / 5 (22) Apr 19, 2016
You can say anything you want. The only thing that is valid when it comes to this issue is the science.


OK, so unicorns are not science, so why bring them up in the first place is my point.

BUT moving on, science is involved in the Author's submission for CO2 enhancements of beneficial crop yield & I can do Rate of Reaction Equations that makes it understandable to me that the Author is making valid points. It doesn't matter from one Rate of Reaction Equation to another that you don't like the chemistry, the science is still valid whether you disdain it or not.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 19, 2016
You can say anything you want. The only thing that is valid when it comes to this issue is the science.


OK, so unicorns are not science, so why bring them up in the first place is my point.


Seriously? Because those posts aren't science either! *running gag dies a horrible death*
I'm gobsmacked, mate, really. I know your posts show a lack of scientific knowledge but you also need an irony injection.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2016
I point out that they may as well be saying the problem is unicorns.

More like the problem is unitards, like you.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (24) Apr 21, 2016
"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.


As a general rule, shooty the potty miss (aka antisciencegorilla sock) cannot understand science, hence always sounds like a clown when giving opinions.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (24) Apr 21, 2016
I personally blame your parents for your stupidity.


now now antisciencegorillamonkey,dont cry, you don't have to understand the science, after all, we know what you do best (swinging from trees) along with your self created socks askdad samb,lairdwilcox,benni

So... unleash your inner baboon, we like to smile... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (25) Apr 21, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.

The wit and wisdom of the Chicken Little tard, people. Behold in wonder.


Bonobo monkey, calm down... your next banana is coming... soon, i promise ;)
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (25) Apr 21, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.

The wit and wisdom of the Chicken Little tard, people. Behold in wonder.


Bonobo monkey, calm down... your next banana is coming... soon, i promise ;)
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (24) Apr 21, 2016
Or we should finally get rid of the unicorns. I've been saying they're the real problem for years.

The wit and wisdom of the Chicken Little tard, people. Behold in wonder.


Bonobo monkey calm down... your next banana is coming...soon...i promise ;)
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (24) Apr 21, 2016
All we have to do is take a glance at the last century to see how far removed from reality the AGW Cult is. It's a period in which humanity flourished despite all the doom and gloom false prophesies. In fact, the US became the fattest nation during this period, producing enough food to actually waste over 30%, while it burned more fossil fuels than any other country.


a aa aaaa bonobo monkey antisciencegorilla, is sitting on the couch getting fat everyday eating mcdonalds and posting his numb thoughts on physorg for a living, must be a lonely life being paid by big oil to post bs, but keep em rolling in, it sure puts shine on it and a lasting smile on everyone else for your persistency :D
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (26) Apr 21, 2016
give it up, anti. Your silly statements here mean nothing.


noooooo ..... i like teasing the monkey with bananas... here monkey monkey... ;)
Pumastar
2.9 / 5 (25) Apr 21, 2016
lol u cracking me up this antigoracle clown is a joke, is he really doing this for a living ?
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (24) Apr 21, 2016
yup, his life revolves around it, he eats sleeps drink posting bs on physorg, one exception he does eat the bananas we throw him in between, as he always comes back for more :D
Benni
3 / 5 (22) Apr 22, 2016
You can say anything you want. The only thing that is valid when it comes to this issue is the science.


OK, so unicorns are not science, so why bring them up in the first place is my point


Seriously? Because those posts aren't science either! *running gag dies a horrible death*
I'm gobsmacked, mate, really. I know your posts show a lack of scientific knowledge but you also need an irony injection.


You're the one who started it with the dumb non-science gags, then you get po'd when when a respondent points it out. You & Al Gore should take a class learning Rate of Reaction Equations so as to avoid suffering more deterioration in your lack of scientific credentials.

Until you figure out that it is not prolific name calling postings that creates the credibility of your background in science, then those of us with advanced degrees in the fields of mathematically based science will just continue smiling at the whiny nature of anything you post.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2016
bonobo benni antigoracle sockpuppet, all the smiles are on you remember, only clever science people get upvoted and monkeys get handed bannanas, this comment earned you another one good job my little monkey :D
humy
5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2016
None of these studies take into account plant toxicity. There's no point in lush plant growth we can't eat.

Why would making the plants grow more make them more toxic?
humy
5 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2016
I've said for years that if we insist in letting the world's population to increase at the rate it is, we will need more carbon dioxide and not less. We should start doing all we can to increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere now and diametrically reverse all environmental and anti-pollution regulations and laws that attempt to reduce carbon dioxide creation and release on earth. We could begin by removing devices that reduce CO2 release on automobiles and manufacturing. We should also do all we can to return to coal power (minus the particle pollution) and other forms of energy that produce C02. The simple fact is that the Millenarian Climate Cultists have been wrong and were so from the outset.

I don't get it; do you actually WANT a world famine? Do you think that world be a GOOD thing!? Because a world famine is what would obviously eventually result from such an insane policies.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2016
I've said for years that if we insist in letting the world's population to increase at the rate it is, we will need more carbon dioxide and not less. We should start doing all we can to increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere now and diametrically reverse all environmental and anti-pollution regulations and laws(...) We could begin by removing devices that reduce CO2 release on automobiles and manufacturing. (...) The simple fact is that the Millenarian Climate Cultists have been wrong and were so from the outset.

I don't get it; do you actually WANT a world famine? Do you think that world be a GOOD thing!? Because a world famine is what would obviously eventually result from such an insane policies.
- humy
A world famine would be agreeable to Eugenicists who believe that the world's population is way too big and is unsupportable. A world famine would be their dream come true. Of course, the Elites like Al Gore and Barack Obama will still eat.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (19) Apr 24, 2016
naa he's just out to get as many bananas as possible, antigoracle aka obama sock is stocking up for the dry season
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2016
None of these studies take into account plant toxicity. There's no point in lush plant growth we can't eat.

Why would making the plants grow more make them more toxic?


Because higher levels of CO2 cause chemical changes in plants that make them inedible. Its' called plant toxicity. But because it varies wildly plant to plant we often don't get a lot of the research on mainstream sites because it's so nuanced and crop specific. So, for example, wheat and rice become notably less nutritious with high levels of CO2, containing significantly less protein. Crops like cassava produce cyanide and the cyanide levels increase substantially with higher levels of CO. Tuber plants become more lush but produce less tubers.

As I said, what's the point of having a lush green world that's either inedible or provides less nutrition?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2016
More of your lies
A Gleadow study published in Plant Biology found that while growing cassava at CO2 levels of 710 ppm had no effect on the cyanide in its root

http://blogs.nich...neffect/
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2016
Sometimes I wonder how your mind works, anti. You just posted something that completely supports my argument with a comment about how it doesn't?

I mean, seriously, that sentence actually reads:

"A Gleadow study published in Plant Biology found that while growing cassava at CO2 levels of 710 ppm had no effect on the cyanide in its root, it doubled the plant's cyanide levels in its leaves and shrank the tuber's size."

Assuming everybody else here can read, why would you so obviously torpedo your own credibility like this?

It also supports my arguments re wheat and protein and explains the negative impacts of higher CO2 levels on other crops as well.

I have to ask

R U OK?
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2016
I don't have to wonder how your deceitful mind works. You claim plants become inedible and specify cassava as an example. Yet the evidence shows that the main edible part, the root, showed NO increase in cyanide. The leaves when soaked in boiling water neutralizes the cyanide. I caught you blatantly lying before but that hasn't stopped you, because the rest of the Chicken Little club all gave you 5s for that lie.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 25, 2016
Adding to leetennant's relevant appropriate posting & fwiw, my Curtin University post grad 2010 re food chemistry & microbiology shows huge combinatorial complexities re Cassava & interactive dependencies ie mineral bio-availability indicating generation of cyanogens (& many types also) influenced by local conditions which means not simple or deterministic

Cassava is one of many, similar is clover - staple european cattle feed, consequential effects dire & more complex as prior to new equilibria re cyanogens other intermediaries form with even further immense permutations eg meat consumption

Another is lignin, wood structural component, CO2 uptake affects safety/fire risk as density/strength sporadic

All cases metabolising more CO2 needs *more* H2O but, distribution getting more chaotic :/

Important to manage permutations & run on complexities for human societal stabilities re global food resources, most efficient reduce CO2 rate of change as an imperative !
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2016
antigoracle yet again facile, oversimplifies with nil understanding of the immensely complex biochemical issues
I don't have to wonder how your deceitful mind works
Only the uneducated person barks, confirming their low intelligence & inability to handle complexity :/

antigoracle says
..evidence shows that the main edible part, the root, showed NO increase in cyanide
This misses & clouds the issue of intermediaries, health effects are not clear, in any case cyanogens (which lead to cyanide) have other secondary effects which many not show up even for years. One aspect is paralysis, mainly cyanogens but, other complexes also implicated

antigoracle claims
.. soaked in boiling water neutralizes the cyanide
Wrong, "some" HCN released as gas, some also intersperses in sugars !

antigoracle childish as ever
Chicken Little club all gave you 5s for that lie
Please be smarter & learn how to interpret plant biochemistry, I told you this months ago !
TehDog
5 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2016
@anti
you posted;
" Yet the evidence shows that the main edible part, the root, showed NO increase in cyanidet"

leet quoted;
"it doubled the plant's cyanide levels in its leaves and shrank the tuber's size."

What do you think that does to the available nutrition per acre?
Hmm, bet livestock eat the leaves, would normally be a waste not to.
https://en.wikipe.../Cassava
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2016
@Tehdog
Instead of jumping in, in the middle of the conversation and making ignorant comments, why don't you start with his original lie, in which he claims it makes plant inedible because of increasing toxicity.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2016
This misses & clouds the issue of intermediaries, health effects are not clear, in any case cyanogens (which lead to cyanide) have other secondary effects which many not show up even for years.

Muh..muh...Mutterin' Mike, Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers. Mutterin' Mike, in the case of cassava the health effects are abundantly clear. The fact that increasing CO2 does not increase the cyanide level in the cassava root is also clear. It is you, Mutterin' Mike who is clouding the issue with your ignorant blabbering.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2016
antigoracle fails yet *again* to comprehend
.. increasing CO2 does not increase the cyanide level in the cassava root is also clear
Wrong, in one experiment it can show subject one set of circumstances Eg mineralisation, at that time, with that species variant

antigoracle relying on narrow quotes unfortunately betrays your low comprehension & focusing on narrowest most facile idea does you no credit, only sullies discussion to nothing better than old rednecks arguing over beer.

antigoracle claims
It is you, Mutterin' Mike who is clouding the issue with your ignorant blabbering
Prove it, your lack of reputation, lack of education, lack of intelligence, lack of manners precedes you all over this forum.

You come across as a badly programmed bot & don't have a leg to stand on :P

If you cannot study, learn or comprehend issue of biochemical permutations & combinatorial complexity then what do you achieve showing yourself up so very often, its so sad :/
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2016
Muh...muh..Mutterin' Mike, who is the Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast and thief?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2016
More on the CO2 lies.
http://www.academ...2_levels
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2016
A small increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 would not necessarily increase any toxicity in most plants. However, with a large enough increase in atmospheric CO2, such plants would also require an increase in water and minerals, plus sufficient sunlight so that photosynthesis can take place.
A very large increase in atmospheric CO2 would not only increase any possible toxic effects to plants that are unable to assimilate the extra Carbon and remove it by sequestering it or by increasing in size in order to dilute the amount that was absorbed, but it is possible also that mutation could occur to counter the effects.
But IF there was that much of an increase in atmospheric CO2 that would render a toxic situation in much of plant life, then any air-breathing animal life might also be affected if the ratio of Oxygen and Nitrogen as opposed to CO2 becomes tilted to an unsafe level for breathing, then even humans/animals would experience severe breathing problems.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2016
@obama_socks
Please check this link, been through it all before, sad deniers just can't/refuse to get base education in key relevant issues, Eg illustrative of antigoracle's lack of intelligence here
http://www.phys.o...ood.html

Also left you a post challenging your unfortunate missing "verifiable evidences" ie Nil verification of amount of geological thermals re Greenland, thread here
http://www.phys.o...ers.html

Its straightforward arithmetic & once you have figures for g & r you use tiny piece of
algebra to work out what x should be, then you apply physics of specific heat (SH) to work out how much this would raise temperature of water such that equation g >> r were to be true, it would be absolutely immense as I'm sure you can discover for yourself via arithmetic & just Why SH of water is so Very important !

Easily solved by knowledge of SH & arithmetic, sorry Benni only makes claims & lies to all :/
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2016


A small increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 would not necessarily increase any toxicity in most plants. However, with a large enough increase in atmospheric CO2, such plants would also require an increase in water and minerals, plus sufficient sunlight so that photosynthesis can take place.
A very large increase in atmospheric CO2 would not only increase any possible toxic effects to plants that are unable to assimilate the extra Carbon and remove it by sequestering it or by increasing in size in order to dilute the amount that was absorbed, but it is possible also that mutation could occur to counter th.....


Obama sock admitting his lies right here:

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

here monkey monkey... :D
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2016
More on the CO2 lies.
http://www.academ...2_levels


more on antisciencgorilla monkey's lies, and then he tries to cover it up by telling another lie :

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

monkey wants bananas :D
highzone
2.1 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2016
yello
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2016
Muh...muh..Mutterin' Mike, who is the Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast and thief?


Why antigoracle ala obama socks sockpuppet himself of course Bonobo admitting to his lies and getting caught read handed.... LOL...
Be the monkey ! :D

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2016
@MikeMassen
You (and others) evidently don't understand what I have been saying. While I am unable to read what's on the minds of antiG, Benni and bschott, and any others whom you refer to as "deniers", wrt GW/CC, I doubt that they are thinking that the planet is not warming or cooling, depending on observations & measurements. Earth is ALWAYS either warming or cooling & everything in between. We understand that Earth is a dynamo of many different interactions between its many parts & WE CANNOT STOP THOSE INTERACTIONS no matter how we try.
The planet MIGHT BE, and MIGHT NOT BE warming. We are, after all, in an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD where the NEXT stop is the next ICE AGE. In order for a new ice age to happen, water has to become plentiful and available as....water. That involves the melting of ice sheets to raise oceanic levels. I don't think that you comprehend well & appreciate the role of special interactions that are happening on the planet on which you live.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2016
(cont'd)
@Mike Massen

You also don't understand that planet Earth is alive. She inhales & exhales (subduction & volcanic emissions, i.e., she consumes & eliminates). She moves (tectonic plate shifting & polar shifts). She shrugs to balance the weight on her (earthquakes). She sends magma to the surface of her "skin" (lithosphere) when the weight of ice becomes unbearable. She does that by melting that ice with her warmth. Her mountain & island building is her artwork for which she utilizes her ability to mobilize her "skin". She is comparable to a "cell" with an outer membrane or wall (lithosphere), an inner wall (upper & lower mantle), a source of internal heat, and a method for "air-conditioning". Like a cell, she also has her own source of renewable energy (EM) and a steady diet of incoming meteorites.
Laugh all you want, but it only shows your disrespect for the idea that your existence on Earth as a human, is of no consequence except in your own mind.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2016
(cont'd)
@MikeMassen
But what you AGWites are pushing hard, is that it is PRIMARILY the fault of humans who REQUIRE ENERGY FROM FOSSIL FUELS to live their daily lives that is the "PRIMARY CAUSE" of GW/CC. Math is not the problem. It is the MINDSET of those who can't recognize that CO2 & CH4, as well as "water vapor" also is emitted from human/animal life forms, not only from fossil fuels. Should humans euthanize themselves to avert possibility of GW/CC?
Until an alternative to oil to run our vehicles is found that is RELIABLE, EFFICIENT, CHEAP, NONPOLLUTING, SAFE TO USE, UNCOMPLICATED, EASY TO MANUFACTURE, etc., humans have no reason to freeze in winter & sweat in Summer to APPEASE THE AGW ELITES who will never reconsider their own fossil fuel usage that would bring them a lot of discomfort. You should seek answers from the Al Gore and IPCC bedfellows as to what they intend to do with all the humans/animals who are still living, inhaling & exhaling to save those Elites.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2016
yello

yello
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2016
@MikeMassen
Your questioning of antigoracle's intelligence doesn't prove favorable to your own cause, and it leaves you (and your fellow bedwetters) wide open to the questioning of your own intellect(s).
I think an apology is in order.

Other than an extreme level of POLLUTION in the atmosphere, waters & soils that is evidence of massive amounts of particulates such as soot and wind-blown dust, pollen, water vapor and other natural atmospheric detritus, the best remedy for alleviating and controlling that situation world-wide, is to begin a massive campaign to END POLLUTION that is caused by human carelessness and inconsideration of the results of their actions. Filters on smoke stacks are already in place in the US, AFAIK. As for the rest of the planet, I will leave that to you and your AGW cohorts to investigate.
Naturally occurring particulates and gases are less likely to be controlled due to their incalculable release into the environment(s) and can only be closely monitored
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2016
Re your reference to "More CO2 also means less nutritious food", I see that the research tends toward this: "Rice, maize, soybeans and wheat are the main source of nutrients for over 2 billion people living in poor countries. But with climate change and the rising amount of CO2 in the air we breathe, their already low nutrient value compared to meat, for instance, is set to decrease."

Two billion people living IN POOR COUNTRIES.
My question is: WHY are they still poor in the 21st Century, and why are their crops not taking up necessary nutrients to prevent starvation and/or malnutrition? Is there a lack of these nutrients IN THE SOIL where their crops are grown? I would guess that is the problem.
I suspect that there may be at least some political shenanigans going on in those POOR countries where the wealth is finding its way into the Elites and politicians' bank accounts.
Nutrients are recycled in the Earth, perhaps too slow to save the poor.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2016
Asinine obama_socks (OS) Fails to comprehend basic Math & Physics of Heat
Earth is ALWAYS either warming or cooling & everything in between
Geological time scales sure but, you Fail Dismally on conjunctive Math/Physics re Rate of Change RoC) with Radiative Transfer (RT), proven Physics of >100yrs definitively shows recent warming of ~120yrs overwhelmingly due to greenhouse gases via RT

OS, your pollyanna intellectually facile comment "..the planet is alive" does nothing to address potentially dire situation or to educate the naive !

Asinine OS blurts
The planet MIGHT BE, and MIGHT NOT BE warming
Such stupid statement only goes to prove you've NIL understanding of Physics re; specific heat, radiative transfer, statistical mechanics etc, therefore should NOT ever make idle dumb assertions (re Physics) you cannot prove !

OS, AGW authoritatively on Roc/RT, prove me wrong Please ?

Why predominantly is it the Physics uneducated who deny AGW ?

Yah think ?
HeloMenelo
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2016
Asinine OS blurts
The planet MIGHT BE, and MIGHT NOT BE warming
Such stupid statement only goes to prove you've NIL understanding of Physics re; specific heat, radiative transfer, statistical mechanics etc, therefore should NOT ever make idle dumb assertions (re Physics) you cannot prove !

OS, AGW authoritatively on Roc/RT, prove me wrong Please ?

Why predominantly is it the Physics uneducated who deny AGW ?

Yah think ?


monkey obama socks/antigoracle sockpuppet can prove his stance with bannanas (as always :D)
you go monkey :D

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.