3 ms·

CO2 massively increases farm yields so I find your claims to be tenuous at best: https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-st

CO2 massively increases farm yields so I find your claims to be tenuous at best: https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect

ch0wn 2y ago
No, it is not and the idea that extreme weather would somehow result in more food is laughable on its face. Higher CO2 concentrations also reduce the nutrients in food. https://skepticalscience.com/fact-brief-plant.html https://skepticalscience.com/fact-brief-plant.html
- ETH_start 2y ago
  It accelerates plant growth, reducing nutrient concentration per cubic centimeter of food, but increasing the total nutrient yield because the overall boost in biomass outweighs the dilution effect. This is why greenhouse farms pump CO2 into their environments. Your reaction though really demonstrates a close-mindedness about your belief that CO2 is harmful that is anti-science.
  - BytesAndGears 2y ago
    But an individual human eats a fixed amount of food. So that fact seems pointless, since people will get less nutrition overall- unless we should all only eat ultra-processed snacks and reserve fresh food for the wealthy?
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      On what basis do you claim that an individual eats a fixed amount of food? If you're worried about how artificially elevated CO2 levels affect agricultural products, then you should start taking issue with commercial greenhouses, which regularly pump CO2 in to increase yields. This is a common practice, and only now is it being viewed as something bad or strange because it's not convenient for the climate change narrative that presents industrial emission of CO2 as the apex threat that requires government-enforced collective action to solve.
defrost 2y ago
While there is a "CO2 fertilization effect" where rising atmospheric carbon dioxide can initially boost plant growth, scientists are increasingly stating that this effect is reaching its limit, meaning plants can no longer absorb as much CO2 due to factors like nutrient limitations and other environmental constraints, effectively capping the potential for further carbon uptake from the atmosphere. It rose in the 30 years prior to your 2016 article, it's peaked and it is unlikely there will be any further benefical effects of "greening" (not the same as "nutritional") vegetation .. and this is outweighed by the downsides of increased insulation in the atmosphere trapping more of the daily solar influx energy at the land, sea, air interface.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  It would be quite odd if the CO2 fertilization effect has already peaked, given that geological history shows periods with much higher CO2 concentrations, during which plant growth was significantly greater. In the long run, humans cannot indefinitely alter atmospheric composition without risking conditions that could undermine life’s prosperity. At sufficiently high concentrations, CO2 also impairs human cognition, as our physiology is not adapted to the extreme levels that were once common in Earth’s distant past. That said, we should remain open to the possibility that CO2 emissions have net positive effects in the short to medium term. If that is the case, CO2 mitigation strategies could be adjusted accordingly—focusing on economically efficient transitions rather than rushing to eliminate CO2 emissions at all costs. This would mean prioritizing the replacement of CO2-emitting energy sources where it is already cost-effective, while investing in R&D to lower transition costs in areas where immediate replacement would be prohibitively expensive.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > It would be quite odd if the CO2 fertilization effect has already peaked, given that geological history shows periods with much higher CO2 concentrations, during which plant growth was significantly greater. The species of plants were at a different evolutionary stage. Further, a lot of bio matter wasn't in the form of human consumables. Algae was by and large the main CO2 absorber of prehistoric periods. It took millions of years of growth for plants to sequester the carbon we are currently emitting. That's millions of years of adaptation to the ever changing atmosphere composition.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
On the other hand, higher weather variance reduces average yields to an extent that dwarfs any benefit from higher CO2. Increased yield unpredictability is a much bigger problem for the agricultural supply chain because it increases average unit costs.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  Massively increases vegetation cover while reducing farm yields? I find that highly implausible. One critical impact of higher CO2 concentrations is that drier climates see more vegetation, so you see a lot of greening in previously arid, barren places. And that also has massively positive implications for farm yields.
maigret 2y ago
LOL have you spoken with farmers lately about their crops? If not I encourage you to ask them about the last 5 - 10 years...

ch0wn 2y ago

No, it is not and the idea that extreme weather would somehow result in more food is laughable on its face. Higher CO2 concentrations also reduce the nutrients in food. https://skepticalscience.com/fact-brief-plant.html https://skepticalscience.com/fact-brief-plant.html

ETH_start 2y ago
It accelerates plant growth, reducing nutrient concentration per cubic centimeter of food, but increasing the total nutrient yield because the overall boost in biomass outweighs the dilution effect. This is why greenhouse farms pump CO2 into their environments. Your reaction though really demonstrates a close-mindedness about your belief that CO2 is harmful that is anti-science.
- BytesAndGears 2y ago
  But an individual human eats a fixed amount of food. So that fact seems pointless, since people will get less nutrition overall- unless we should all only eat ultra-processed snacks and reserve fresh food for the wealthy?
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    On what basis do you claim that an individual eats a fixed amount of food? If you're worried about how artificially elevated CO2 levels affect agricultural products, then you should start taking issue with commercial greenhouses, which regularly pump CO2 in to increase yields. This is a common practice, and only now is it being viewed as something bad or strange because it's not convenient for the climate change narrative that presents industrial emission of CO2 as the apex threat that requires government-enforced collective action to solve.

defrost 2y ago

While there is a "CO2 fertilization effect" where rising atmospheric carbon dioxide can initially boost plant growth, scientists are increasingly stating that this effect is reaching its limit, meaning plants can no longer absorb as much CO2 due to factors like nutrient limitations and other environmental constraints, effectively capping the potential for further carbon uptake from the atmosphere. It rose in the 30 years prior to your 2016 article, it's peaked and it is unlikely there will be any further benefical effects of "greening" (not the same as "nutritional") vegetation .. and this is outweighed by the downsides of increased insulation in the atmosphere trapping more of the daily solar influx energy at the land, sea, air interface.

ETH_start 2y ago
It would be quite odd if the CO2 fertilization effect has already peaked, given that geological history shows periods with much higher CO2 concentrations, during which plant growth was significantly greater. In the long run, humans cannot indefinitely alter atmospheric composition without risking conditions that could undermine life’s prosperity. At sufficiently high concentrations, CO2 also impairs human cognition, as our physiology is not adapted to the extreme levels that were once common in Earth’s distant past. That said, we should remain open to the possibility that CO2 emissions have net positive effects in the short to medium term. If that is the case, CO2 mitigation strategies could be adjusted accordingly—focusing on economically efficient transitions rather than rushing to eliminate CO2 emissions at all costs. This would mean prioritizing the replacement of CO2-emitting energy sources where it is already cost-effective, while investing in R&D to lower transition costs in areas where immediate replacement would be prohibitively expensive.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > It would be quite odd if the CO2 fertilization effect has already peaked, given that geological history shows periods with much higher CO2 concentrations, during which plant growth was significantly greater. The species of plants were at a different evolutionary stage. Further, a lot of bio matter wasn't in the form of human consumables. Algae was by and large the main CO2 absorber of prehistoric periods. It took millions of years of growth for plants to sequester the carbon we are currently emitting. That's millions of years of adaptation to the ever changing atmosphere composition.

jandrewrogers 2y ago

On the other hand, higher weather variance reduces average yields to an extent that dwarfs any benefit from higher CO2. Increased yield unpredictability is a much bigger problem for the agricultural supply chain because it increases average unit costs.

ETH_start 2y ago
Massively increases vegetation cover while reducing farm yields? I find that highly implausible. One critical impact of higher CO2 concentrations is that drier climates see more vegetation, so you see a lot of greening in previously arid, barren places. And that also has massively positive implications for farm yields.

maigret 2y ago

LOL have you spoken with farmers lately about their crops? If not I encourage you to ask them about the last 5 - 10 years...