3 ms·

I bet you $1000 USD you're wrong.

chrisco255 3y ago
Not a smart bet to take when the experiment has already been conducted thousands of times: https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3 https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-... This isn't new knowledge. We've known this for over 100 years. "An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40 to 100 percent and C4 plants by 10 to 25 percent while keeping other inputs at an optimum level."
- zdragnar 3y ago
  Since neither of them will be alive in 1000 years to collect, it is rather moot, no?
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    It's mostly a joke on that basis, but I am a little skeptical that the well-known CO2 experiments will apply on average across the globe without being counteracted in part or whole by the temperature & growing season impacts. In our current breadbaskets plants are going to be losing a chunk of the day in the middle of the growing season when it is too hot to photosynthesize on a regular basis, and the tradeoffs of what land is desertified and what land is defrosted is unlikely to be a net gain. The gains from increased CO2 are starting from in a hole and I'm not expecting to break even, let alone see faster or greater biomass on average, let alone at the rate we see in experiments using our current climate and future CO2 levels.
    - b112 3y ago
      We have two main types of human corn here (Quebec). Yellow corn, and bi-colour corn. Yellow corn literally does not come to full harvest if there are too many cloudy days. This happens once a decade maybe. It needs a growing season longer, and with more light than we have here. Just 300km further south, in Ontario, this is not a problem. (Bear in mind that the days shorten fast as fall approaches here) Bi-colour corn can get two crops. My point is, we already... without genetic engineering, just by selective breeding, get wild variations in growth rate, and yields, and harvest times... with just a decade or two of selective breeding work! And my second point is, the most fertile land is going to become usable, if temps continue to rise. All that bog in Northern Canada. We just need crops suited to shorter growing seasons, and very long days at equinox. Canada is already mostly farmland. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
      - saalweachter 3y ago
        Re: selective breeding and genetic engineering, that's going to happen regardless of the atmospheric carbon levels. Also, while I did bring up agriculture and it's fair to point out that it's going to get better over the next thousand years, agriculture is only about 2% of the Earth's plant biomass. While the rest of the biomass will be affected by the heat and benefit from the CO2, unless we start engineering the phytoplankton and the forests and all the other plants around us, it's not going to benefit from it. Re: Canada's gain, there is a lot of land between 50 and 70 degrees north. The questions are (a) how much land in the north are we trading for how much land in the south? and (b) how does the productivity of the northern land compare to the productivity lost in the southern land?
        b112 3y ago
        Re: selective breeding and genetic engineering, that's going to happen regardless of the atmospheric carbon levels But not to tailor crops, for areas that are currently permafrost. There are billions of acres of permafrost bogs/peat in Northern Canada. They are even a concern, for as they thaw, they offgas. Think of these areas as you would think of coal, in terms of CO2 being released. But! That peat and bog is immensely fertile. If, outside of the growing season length issues, warmer temperatures come, then that is very, very rich, fertile farmland. But we need specially tailored crops, which would never be created otherwise.

Not a smart bet to take when the experiment has already been conducted thousands of times: https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3 https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-... This isn't new knowledge. We've known this for over 100 years. "An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40 to 100 percent and C4 plants by 10 to 25 percent while keeping other inputs at an optimum level."

zdragnar 3y ago
Since neither of them will be alive in 1000 years to collect, it is rather moot, no?
- saalweachter 3y ago
  It's mostly a joke on that basis, but I am a little skeptical that the well-known CO2 experiments will apply on average across the globe without being counteracted in part or whole by the temperature & growing season impacts. In our current breadbaskets plants are going to be losing a chunk of the day in the middle of the growing season when it is too hot to photosynthesize on a regular basis, and the tradeoffs of what land is desertified and what land is defrosted is unlikely to be a net gain. The gains from increased CO2 are starting from in a hole and I'm not expecting to break even, let alone see faster or greater biomass on average, let alone at the rate we see in experiments using our current climate and future CO2 levels.
  - b112 3y ago
    We have two main types of human corn here (Quebec). Yellow corn, and bi-colour corn. Yellow corn literally does not come to full harvest if there are too many cloudy days. This happens once a decade maybe. It needs a growing season longer, and with more light than we have here. Just 300km further south, in Ontario, this is not a problem. (Bear in mind that the days shorten fast as fall approaches here) Bi-colour corn can get two crops. My point is, we already... without genetic engineering, just by selective breeding, get wild variations in growth rate, and yields, and harvest times... with just a decade or two of selective breeding work! And my second point is, the most fertile land is going to become usable, if temps continue to rise. All that bog in Northern Canada. We just need crops suited to shorter growing seasons, and very long days at equinox. Canada is already mostly farmland. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      Re: selective breeding and genetic engineering, that's going to happen regardless of the atmospheric carbon levels. Also, while I did bring up agriculture and it's fair to point out that it's going to get better over the next thousand years, agriculture is only about 2% of the Earth's plant biomass. While the rest of the biomass will be affected by the heat and benefit from the CO2, unless we start engineering the phytoplankton and the forests and all the other plants around us, it's not going to benefit from it. Re: Canada's gain, there is a lot of land between 50 and 70 degrees north. The questions are (a) how much land in the north are we trading for how much land in the south? and (b) how does the productivity of the northern land compare to the productivity lost in the southern land?
      - b112 3y ago
        Re: selective breeding and genetic engineering, that's going to happen regardless of the atmospheric carbon levels But not to tailor crops, for areas that are currently permafrost. There are billions of acres of permafrost bogs/peat in Northern Canada. They are even a concern, for as they thaw, they offgas. Think of these areas as you would think of coal, in terms of CO2 being released. But! That peat and bog is immensely fertile. If, outside of the growing season length issues, warmer temperatures come, then that is very, very rich, fertile farmland. But we need specially tailored crops, which would never be created otherwise.