Will rising carbon dioxide levels really boost plant growth?

At 150 PPM of co2, life on earth ceases to exist. We are currently below 400 and at one of the lowest points in history. for co2 concentration. This co2 hysteria is STRICTLY political manipulation. The deserts are expanding. We need at LEAST 8 times more co2 than we current'y have, if we plan to feed the world.

The biggest threat that we face is crop failure due to COOLING. There have been many cooling periods in the past just as there have been warming periods. Of course the cooling will also be due to increased CO2 levels since this is a non falsifiable science.

It already has. It's documented.

Why can't you guys just admit excessive changes to the atmosphere is a bad thing to the biosphere that evolved specifically for a certain atmosphere?
Half the Great Barrier Reef is gone now. Coastal areas are flooding. Droughts and wildfires are increasing.

CO2 may be a trace gas, but the fact there's enough of it that it can build every plant on earth shows that "trace gas" doesn't mean a thing in practical terms.
Stop destroying the planet for a bunch of oligarchs that couldn't care less about you

Fuck you b_man, fuck you mackita, and fuck you MR166. You are each an idiot and a troll, and you need to be called out each and every time you show your misbegotten faces.

The biggest threat that we face is crop failure due to COOLING. cooling due to increased CO2 levels since this is a non falsifiable science.

Hyper nonsense. this millenium is at the hot peak of the interglacial, which is due to axis and orbit oscillations. The temps would be expected to warm for the next 300-500 years and then cool down. So it's too early to warm the earth. millions of Africans and Arid climate people will be forced to flee away from their homelands into rich countries for food security, because people like this guy don't understand science or politics and they stab themselves in the back with their own confusion.

".... millions of Africans and Arid climate people will be forced to flee away from their homelands into rich countries...."

They are already fleeing in the millions due to the wars in the ME created by the One World Government deep state. Soros and the like are doing a great job of creating the world unrest needed to collapse western democracy.

According to literature, such as this on at nature.com, higher CO2 not only increases plant growth, but also reduces the amount of water that plants need by a substantial amount.

https://www.natur...13254108

The biggest threat that we face is crop failure due to COOLING. There have been many cooling periods in the past just as there have been warming periods. Of course the cooling will also be due to increased CO2 levels since this is a non falsifiable science.

Yeah, right!! There were cooler periods! It actually was cooler this morning. And the 90s were definitely very cool! Hell, there even was a president who played sax, you tell me if this is not cool. And lets not forget taht my fridge is cool too!
Nah, forget it, I'll set you in the ignore list.

https://www.iceag...e-north/

This has delayed plantings in many regions and will affect crop yields .

More astonishing BULLSHIT from the AGW Cult and their PATHOLOGICAL "science. But, what is a desperate CULT to do, when REALITY defies their dogma, and they must keep their Chicken Littles having that warm fuzzy feeling.

It isn't as though thousands of commercial greenhouses growing thousands of varieties of plants haven't demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that more CO2 increases plant growth and yield. No the Goobal Worming hoaxers insist that CO2 cant possibly be beneficial in any way. It has to be a deadly poison. That's just a fact JACK. Accept it because we say so.

local welding supply sells 50,000 $ co2 a month to local greenhouses

I can't even with these trolls anymore.

None of this is new. We know that increasing CO2 increases yields in the short term but after a point it can lead to reduced yields through plant toxicity - and even increase CO2 levels further as plant respiration rates change. That's before we take into account the impact of fast-changing seasons, rainfall and the shift of climatic zones. More importantly, higher CO2 levels don't necessarily benefit our food crops, even in the short term. There's no point in living in a lush, green world of inedible weeds growing in the wrong locations.

Scientists have proven every year that the world is 10 years away from mass starvation for as long as I can remember. At some point the story of the boy who cried wolf becomes relevant.

@MR, if you're just gonna lie there's no point in reading anything you say.

The biggest threat that we face is crop failure due to COOLING.

Not within the next century or more.

There have been many cooling periods in the past just as there have been warming periods.

So what? What that has that got to do with us causing the recent warming?

Of course the cooling will also be due to increased CO2 levels since this is a non falsifiable science

It's a proven scientific fact that CO2 produced by human activity causes global warming because both well-tested basic physics tells us CO2 should cause warming and the empirical evidence has now confirmed it.
And there isn't any empirical evidence nor credible scientific theory to the contrary.

@humy, don't forget to point out almanac figures for how much coal and oil we're burning per year. That's how we know how much carbon we're adding to the atmosphere. And we confirm it with CO2 concentration measurements from CO2 observatories.

Scientists have proven every year that the world is 10 years away from mass starvation for as long as I can remember. At some point the story of the boy who cried wolf becomes relevant.

So you make a straw man and then blow it down.
Extremely few if any scientists have ever claimed that they have proven the world will starve in 10 years time.
You must be getting desperate; you cannot attack the scientific evidence that contradicts your twisted opinions and lies so you make up straw man crap to attack the scientists that collected or discovered that evidence you don't like.

Finally the penny has dropped; life on earth has evolved to survive on CO2

C3 grasses grown under extra CO₂ did better – but their C4 equivalents did not

One of the more important molecules plants need is CO2 without which the plants will die!
Plants need CO2, sunshine, nitrogen, oxygen and a long list of trace elements.
Take any element away and plants suffer.

So why has nature created the circumstances where plants are depleting the atmospheric CO2?

On a more insane level, why has nature evolved humans beings to remove large quantise of CO2 and bury them underground so plants cannot utilise the CO2, are there a species of human beings that have evolved suicidal tendencies!

If increasing CO2 won't meaningfully improve plant yield as the author has postulated, then I guess all those dumb farmers who pump CO2 into their greenhouses are wasting their time.

"Many projections" claim that increasing CO2 will negatively impact agriculture in the future, while other studies show the increase in atmospheric CO2 has improved agricultural production. Which is right? Here's the fundamental difference in how they arrive at their conclusions: the projections of decreasing food production are entirely based on assumptions and computer models that have yet to be verified. The studies projecting increased crop yields from more CO2 are based on actual measurements and decades of studies and tests of CO2 on crops.

Worldwide agricultural production has been steadily improving over the last century largely due to technological improvements and there is no sign that will change anytime soon. The only people claiming it will are the climate alarmists.

If increasing CO2 won't meaningfully improve plant yield as the author has postulated, then I guess all those dumb farmers who pump CO2 into their greenhouses are wasting their time.

No, because pumping CO2 into greenhouses don't cause droughts floods and hurricanes to destroy the same specific crops inside those greenhouses. That isn't specifically what this article argued but rather it suggested that how much plants benefit from more CO2 depends both on local conditions and whether they are C3 or C4, which is also correct because that is a proven scientific fact. That suggestion doesn't in anyway contradict or is in any way inconsistent with CO2 enrichment in greenhouses usually causing greater plant growth and yield.
Using your same moronic 'logic', burning fossil fuels to heat your home doesn't help you to travel so you would guess all those 'dumb' car drivers who pump fossil fuels into their car fuel tanks are wasting their time.

One of the more important molecules plants need is CO2 without which the plants will die!

we obviously all already know this and it's irrelevance to the fact that too mush extra CO2 in the atmosphere will cause us some problems with global climate.
When we propose to stop putting extra CO2 in the atmosphere, we are obviously not proposing to remove all the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere and you are a moron for making the straw man that we propose to remove all CO2.

the projections of decreasing food production are entirely based on assumptions and computer models that have yet to be verified. The studies projecting increased crop yields from more CO2 are based on actual measurements and decades of studies and tests of CO2 on crops.

Take a look at some of the results of this ongoing mutidecadal study.

http://www.biocon.umn.edu/
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua2906/f/media/reichhobbiencc2013.pdf
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua2906/f/media/reich.nature.2006a.pdf
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua2906/f/media/lauoecol2009.pdf
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/sites/g/files/pua2906/f/media/bassiri.gcb_.2003.pdf

Obviously not entirely based on assumptions and computer models that have yet to be verified.

the projections of decreasing food production are entirely based on assumptions and computer models that have yet to be verified. The studies projecting increased crop yields from more CO2 are based on actual measurements and decades of studies and tests of CO2 on crops.

or vice versa

https://www.ideal...quence=2

or supporters of greedy scientists, who willingly ignore alternative explanations of global warming

There are currently no scientifically creditable alternative explanations of the main cause of the recent global warming for us to 'ignore' because the alternatives have already been examined and proven false and scientists are no more 'greedy' than you are and any 'greed' won't debunk empirical evidence or proof.
Lets say Newton and Einstein were greedy; so the law of gravity must be wrong?
you cannot ever validly attack science by attacking the character of the scientists.

There are currently no scientifically creditable alternative explanations of the main cause of the recent global warming for us

Which is just a plain lie

No, its the truth. And your moronic link there tells plain lies for that machine mentioned in that link proves nothing it says it proves. What that centrifuge machine does is entirely irrelevant to what greenhouse gasses do; what a load of morons they are.

http://www.earth-...tors/C54

Higher levels of CO2 are harmful eh?

Higher levels of CO2 are harmful eh?

yes
1- your link is from 2012. if you want to learn about the detrimental effects, see SteveS post above: http://www.biocon.umn.edu/

2- since you have repeatedly ignored my multiple links to studies in the past, I am just going to post this link which directly refutes your claims with additional links/references you will also ignore: https://skeptical...nced.htm

deniers have claimed every year that the science is wrong for as long as I can remember, and the reality is that it keeps getting validated proving the deniers wrong

At some point the story of the boy who cried wolf becomes relevant

Lets say Newton... [was] greedy

Actually, he was. That's why he got made Master of the Mint and invested in the South Sea Bubble. Although it must be admitted he did quite a good job for Britain as Master of the Mint, catching coiners and clippers and ensuring the value of the currency.

It is really easy to raise most plants in a controlled atmosphere. For every domesticated species, we have published curves showing growth rates relative to available CO2, temp, humidity, light, etc. and really understand pretty well how most of those things interact.

Trying to feed your dog twice as he can use much will not give you a dog that is twice as big. He will not only fail, he will have serious health issues.

For most C3 plants, growth can be increased almost 80% with enhanced CO2. This however assumes absolutely optimum amounts of water, other nutrients and sunshine (double natural light). Plants grown like this are also much weaker and susceptible to natural pathogens.

Interactions with individual micro-environments is the reason its so hard to tell benefits/detriments.

Trying to simplify... Adding more CO2 into the air is only beneficial if it can be converted into plant material. This means that not only must the CO2 be absorbed into the plant, but there must be sufficient water and sunlight to convert it. In a greenhouse, where we can add light and water, of course CO2 is beneficial.

Outside, growth is limited by whatever thing the plant needs is most limited. In natural sunlight, optimal water and nutes, you can get a modest increase in growth with additional CO2, all other things being equal. But increasing temperature usually impacts water availability, and has detrimental effects on the amount of light convertible to plant mass.

Taking greenhouse results using enhanced lights as evidence climate change is beneficial is just plain stupid.

What part of "it doesn't work in the real world like it does in a greenhouse" do these people not get?

What part of "it doesn't work in the real world like it does in a greenhouse" do these people not get?

I am guessing they don't get the "real world" part of that.

What are some examples of c4 plants?
C3. beans, rice, wheat, potatoes. most temperate crops. all woody trees.
C4. corn, sugarcane, amaranth. hot, dry. mostly grasses but some shrubs (cold-tolerant)
CAM. cactus, euphorbia, some orchids (epiphytic) short of water, not too hot.

Corn had record high yields per acre in 2017.

https://www.agweb...aa-usda/

It is all to easy to predict disaster and the high priests have been making a living doing so for 1000s of years.

But increasing temperature usually impacts water availability

Climate change also impacts weather variability. What good is 1% more plant growth if the chance of dying off due to extreme frost or extreme heat is upped by 50%?

granville583762:

So why has nature created the circumstances where plants are depleting the atmospheric CO2?

On a more insane level, why has nature evolved humans beings to remove large quantise of CO2 and bury them underground so plants cannot utilise the CO2, are there a species of human beings that have evolved suicidal tendencies!

Exactly backwards!! What do you think that fossil coal oil and gas is??? It is carbon that the PLANTS sequestered millions of years ago during a period when the Earth was a giant greenhouse! Now we stupid humans are digging up and releasing the stored CO2 of an entire geological era in mere decades. The problem isn't any particular CO2 level or change, it is the fast rate of change we are causing. Things are changing faster than nature and our infrastructure can adapt. The CO2 causes weather pattern shifts which are very disruptive. Have you noticed the link between crop failures and civil war in Africa?

The biggest crop failures and famines in world history happened during cold periods. Also plants require less water when CO2 concentrations are high.

It has not been proven that higher temperatures lessen rainfall. They should increase it.

Any benefits of higher rainfall or CO2 level get negated by the shifting climate patterns. What good does increased rainfall do if the rain has shifted from where a crop has been grown to another area? Or your region now has too much rain for the crops being grown there? Even trying to move/adjust farming infrastructure may not help as the climate may be a moving target for centuries to come. (It certainly doesn't help if favorable growing conditions shift out of your country.)

CU all of what you mention is bad but NONE of it has been proven to be actual fact.

" as the climate may be a moving target for centuries to come." So what else is new, climate changes.

It has not been proven that higher temperatures lessen rainfall. They should increase it.

MR166

Before making idiotic baseless assertions against the known scientific facts about climate like you did above, you could at least bother study what those known facts are which you clearly haven't above.
It is and has been long known that global warming means warmer oceans thus more evaporation from oceans that will cause more average global rainfall; and NO climate scientists are claiming the contrary, idiot.

Obviously, warmer global temperatures would have complex local climatic effects making some areas drier and others wetter while increasing the overall annual average global rainfall. The greater local variably of monthly rainfall caused by warmer global temperature mains greater frequency of droughts (and floods) despite the overall yearly average global rainfall being higher.

"Obviously, warmer global temperatures would have complex local climatic effects making some areas drier and others wetter while increasing the overall annual average global rainfall. The greater local variably of monthly rainfall caused by warmer global temperature mains greater frequency of droughts (and floods) despite the overall yearly average global rainfall being higher."

Yes and all of that is predicted by the illustrious climate models and nothing else. As I said, NO REAL PROOF!

No hands to till the fields

granville583762:

So why has nature created the circumstances where plants are depleting the atmospheric CO2?

On a more insane level, why has nature evolved humans beings to remove large quantise of CO2 and bury them underground so plants cannot utilise the CO2, are there a species of human beings that have evolved suicidal tendencies!

carbon_unit> Have you noticed the link between crop failures and civil war in Africa?

Cival wars cause death and destruction and famine, no hands to till the fields!
Nothing to do with global warming.

Yes and all of that is predicted by the illustrious climate models and nothing else.

Nope; we are already seeing greater variability in weather across the globe; exactly as the models predicted.

"Nope; we are already seeing greater variability in weather across the globe; exactly as the models predicted."

That is a subjective statement with no mathematical proof to back it up. Any "change" at all qualifies as proof in your world.

@mr

That is a subjective statement with no mathematical proof to back it up

not subjective

there is experimental and observational proof - but you choose not to see it

considering your refusal to even consider historical evidence and modern validation (like Francis, Vavrus) then exactly how would anyone actually convince you of anything at all?

you've actively chosen to ignore not only experimental data but observed data - that is, by definition, delusional and fanatical behaviour

just because you refuse to see it and believe in reality doesn't mean it's not real and that you can fly with a black feather in your nose...

granville583762:

Cival wars cause death and destruction and famine, no hands to till the fields!
Nothing to do with global warming.

So drought is caused by lack of farming? Backwards AGAIN!
https://www.clima...ary-2016

... The 2015-2016 rainy season ranks among the worst in at least the last 30 years for many areas. Rains since October have been below 80% of normal across a broad swath of southeastern Africa. ... Zimbabwe has declared a state of disaster as more than a quarter of the population face food shortages according to the Guardian quoting Zimbabwe's public works minister. More than 16,000 cattle have died, while up to 75% of crops have been abandoned in the country's driest areas.

El Nino seems to be a big suspect as a factor in this one.

I see that the above link is from 2016. The problem is persisting:
http://www.opusa....esponse/

East Africa is currently experiencing the worst drought to hit the region in 60 years. The UN has officially declared famine in parts of southern Somalia—regions of Lower Shabelle and southern Bakool. It is predicted that the entire south of Somalia will face famine within the next two months. Operation USA is working to assess unmet needs on the ground, with its initial response focusing on water resource needs in Kenya's Dadaab refugee camps. The Dadaab camps–the largest in the world–are reported to receive as many as 1,300 refugees a day, the majority fleeing war-torn Somalia. These camps house almost 400,000 displaced people in three camps originally designated for 90,000.

I always like to see good research happening on these threads, @carbon_unit.

"Nope; we are already seeing greater variability in weather across the globe; exactly as the models predicted."

That is a subjective statement with no mathematical proof to back it up.

"mathematical proof"? You mean you think we need a "mathematical" proof rather an observational one to scientifically prove a model correctly predicts something in the real world? No, we require observational proof, which we do indeed have. And that proof isn't "subjective" as it comes out the readouts of our measuring instruments. Are you a flateather?

No, greater variability is not a subjective statement. It is quantitatively classifiable and has been quantitatively classified. @MR is lying again.

If you Live in a Desert expect Drought!

granville583762:

Cival wars cause death and destruction and famine, no hands to till the fields!
Nothing to do with global warming.

carbon_unit> So drought is caused by lack of farming? Backwards AGAIN!
https://www.clima...ary-2016

... The 2015-2016 rainy season ranks among the worst in at least the last 30 years for many areas. Rains since October have been below 80% of normal across a broad swath of southeastern Africa. ... Zimbabwe has declared a state of disaster as more than a quarter of the population face food shortages according to the Guardian quoting Zimbabwe's public works minister. More than 16,000 cattle have died, while up to 75% of crops have been abandoned in the country's driest areas.

El Nino seems to be a big suspect as a factor in this one.

"You mean you think we need a "mathematical" proof rather an observational one to scientifically prove a model correctly predicts something in the real world? "

Yes we need mathematical proof that the data is not random noise in the system. This has nothing to do with models. There will be plenty of papers "Proving" that this years cold in the US and Europe was caused by CO2 just as there would have been plenty of papers "Proving" that the warmth was caused by CO2 if it was warmer than usual. You see the models prove that there is no such thing as a natural change.

"You mean you think we need a "mathematical" proof rather an observational one to scientifically prove a model correctly predicts something in the real world? "

Yes we need mathematical proof that the data is not random noise in the system.

What are you talking about?
So all those, say, temperature measurements made independently around the world consistently showing, say, a clear annual average ocean surface temperature increase within the known error of measurement, could be, according to you, so called "random noise in the system" thus false? Please don't talk bullocks. And what would, according to you, such a "mathematical proof" look like for that? Can you give a specific example of such a "mathematical proof" that "the data is not random noise in the system" and explain why it is required? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
There is nothing wrong with our measurements of temperature and rainfall amount and wind speed. Try again.

@mr

Yes we need mathematical proof that the data is not random noise in the system. This has nothing to do with models

except that the models you hate because they're accurate are extrapolations of the mathematical models built around the data due to constant validation and scientific research to isolate the cause and remove the noise ...

No Capt. I was thinking of a statistical analysis of a weather occurrence comparing it with historical records and assigning to it a probability that it was caused by CO2 and not just a natural occurance. Right now pretty much every weather anomaly is credited to CO2 levels.

@mr

No Capt. I was thinking of a statistical analysis of a weather occurrence comparing it with historical records and assigning to it a probability that it was caused by CO2 and not just a natural occurance

really?

I see one glaring problem with that comment: you've historically ignored any and all scientific data presented in those areas, be it statistical analysis or probability of occurrence due to CO2

FrancisVavrus comes to mind here as it's directly related:
It was hypothesized and modelled, then studied, then it was predicted to do [x] which was subsequently validated, and it currently demonstrates the situation with you perfectly

so tell me, if you were to be given this data, what would it do to your beliefs?
would you accept AGW? or would you deny it and give your many varied excuses you've historically used to ignore it already?

Perhaps I would believe the results perhaps not. Truthfully, I suppose it depends on who did the analysis and how well it was accepted by scientists that are non partial.

Truthfully, I suppose it depends on who did the analysis and how well it was accepted by scientists that are non partial.

No, it depends on the evidence and the actual validity of its proposed interpretation irrespective of what people including scientists think accept or believe.

"No, it depends on the evidence and the actual validity of its proposed interpretation irrespective of what people including scientists think accept or believe. "

I agree and that is why I specified non partial scientists to review the findings. Accepted was a poor choice of word and validated would have been better.

@mr

I suppose it depends on who did the analysis and how well it was accepted by scientists that are non partial.
...
that is why I specified non partial scientists to review the findings

this makes me question you more than anything

a validated study *is* and *must be* reviewed by non-partial scientists - usually, scientists working to compete with the other scientists to prove them wrong

a study cannot be validated by the same people

so your statement essentially says that you will not accept any science that doesn't meet your preconcieved notions or is unacceptable to your political beliefs

"a validated study *is* and *must be* reviewed by non-partial scientists - usually, scientists working to compete with the other scientists to prove them wrong

a study cannot be validated by the same people"

Show what you are saying Capt. is, since all papers are "Reviewed" before being published, every published paper should be accepted without question.

"Show what you are saying Capt. is, since all papers are "Reviewed" before being published, every published paper should be accepted without question."

Should be:

So what you are saying Capt. is, since all papers are "Reviewed" before being published, every published paper should be accepted without question.

My typos are getting absurd.

@mr

since all papers are "Reviewed" before being published,

that isn't the validation process, that is the publication process (peer review) and its primary purpose is to catch the worst mistakes before publication

more to the point: it is reviewed by impartial scientists

every published paper should be accepted without question

except pseudoscience

in order to eliminate the more blatant pseudoscience, there has to be a process of review to ensure the worst of it is stopped - that is what peer review is

if deniers had the ability to produce factual science that refuted AGW, it would be published as that is the whole purpose of science

this is one of the most powerful indicators that denier bullsh*t is fanatical adherence to political rhetoric and not to science