Thanks, Jean!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/biden-considers-ridiculous-climate-emergency-declaration/
++++++++++
What haven't I stated about this nonsense 10 times already (-:
Re: Re: Re: Re: UAH March-global temperature
By metmike - April 22, 2024, 5:08 p.m.
However, a climate EMERGENCY gives Biden new powers!
April 18, 2024
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-politics-and-policy-of-a-national-climate-emergency-declaration/
++++++++++++++++++++++++
It looks like the number above for Biden is wrong because he's declared several National Emergencies. Also the number of emergencies from other presidents above is off too.
The total National Emergencies has been 82, not 62.
40 have expired and 42 remain in effect.
Here they are. Most of them are things that none of us knew about. Trump used it to build his wall that was never finished.
Imagine how many MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that would not have entered the past 3 years if the wall had been completed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
A national emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions not normally permitted. The 1976 National Emergencies Act implemented various legal requirements regarding emergencies declared by the President of the United States.[1][2]
As of March 2024, 82 emergencies have been declared;[3] 40 have expired and another 42 are currently in effect, each having been renewed annually by the president.
DOES THIS MEAN HE CAN LOCK US DOWN & CALL FOR MAIL- IN BALLOTS, ONLY??
THAT'D GO OVER LIKE A LEAD BALLOON!!!!!
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!! LOLOLOL
Here are some authentic facts/data/evidence/science about the current climate OPTIMUM for most life.
That's what makes calling this a climate crisis/emergency on this greening planet so farcical and dishonest!
Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level
Started by metmike - Dec. 15, 2020, 8:03 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/
Re: Re: Re: Optimal amount of CO2 for life more than double
By metmike - April 25, 2024, 9:09 a.m.
Greatest climate crisis in history 1876-1878. 50 million died, 3% of the global population.
Part of the reason was that the CO2 levels had dropped dangerously low and plants were CO2 starved!!!!
CO2 is a beneficial gas. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have rescued the planet from near CO2 starvation, going from 290 ppm to the current much better but still low 420 ppm.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Additionally, this was at the end of a period of GLOBAL COOLING and what is referred to as "The Little Ice Age". Global cooling is the REAL threat to life on this planet.
geochronology
https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age
Originally the phrase was used to refer to Earth’s most recent 4,000-year period of mountain-glacier expansion and retreat. Today some scientists use it to distinguish only the period 1500–1850, when mountain glaciers expanded to their greatest extent, but the phrase is more commonly applied to the broader period 1300–1850. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900–1300 ce) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Even today, many times more people die from cold than from heat but global warming is making it much better NOT worse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Optimal amount of CO2 for life more than double
By metmike - April 25, 2024, 9:36 a.m.
In 2024, the planet is experiencing a climate OPTIMUM based on all authentic science (biology, agronomy, meteorology, zoology)
We're experiencing the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years, since the last time that it was this warm(during the Medieval Warm Period).
With the additional, beneficial CO2, planet earth is experiencing the best conditions for life since humans have existed though still not as warm as the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM, just over 5,000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period in the first half of the Holoceneepoch, that occurred in the interval roughly 9,500 to 5,500 years BP,[1] with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.
Temperatures during the HCO were higher than in the present by around 6 °C in Svalbard, near the North Pole.[10]
Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions that were warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites for which quantitative estimates have been obtained, local temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher during the optimum than now. Northwestern North America reached peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, but the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled eastern Canada. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than now.[11] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than now.[12] The Greenland Ice Sheet thinned, particularly at its margins
By metmike - April 25, 2024, 8:38 a.m.
Thanks, Jean!
From the article:
"The rule also would force future electric plants fueled by coal or gas to control up to 90% of their carbon pollution."
The world has gone insane with stealing our intelligence and replacing it with retarded information. Redefining authentic science with new retarded definitions for political agenda's and crony capitalism, corrupt science funding, misinformed but often sincere environmentalism and dishonest, sensationalizing, ratings seeking media.
Let me try to fix that:
1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is NOT carbon(C). Just like H2O is not Hydrogen.
2. CO2 is a beneficial gas. C is a solid.
3. A beneficial gas is NOT pollution!
4. The optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 900 parts per million. Currently, we are at 420 ppm, just under half of the optimal level.
Ironically, all their solutions to "fix" the fake climate crisis.........are WRECKING the planet!
BACK TO OFFSHORE WIND POWER........
Started by 12345 - March 25, 2024, 5:13 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/102805/
| Windturbines killing whales too 36 responses | Started by metmike - Jan. 13, 2023, 10:07 p.m. https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/92174/ |
DeathbyGREENING!
40 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Declaring a climate "emergency" during a scientific climate OPTIMUM for life because of an increase of beneficial CO2 and beneficial warming for most life is about as scientifically fraudulent as it gets.
It is true, however that we've superimposed around 2 deg. F of warming on the mid latitudes over the last 100 years. This does mean heat waves in the Summer in some places will be 2 deg. F hotter.
The atmosphere holds 7% more moisture so heavy rain events have increased( global drought has NOT increased).
Sea levels are increasing at just over 1 inch/decade(a foot in the last century).
And some hurricanes can strengthen much more rapidly...while violent tornadoes have decreased because of the less extreme meridional temperature gradient.
Is that an emergency?
If we went back to the climate of 100 years ago, which they want us to think was the perfect climate before humans burning fossil fuels changed it, that would cause 1 billion people to die of starvation within 3 years because crop production would drop 26% just from the lower CO2.
Take out the benefits from warming and take out the fossil fuel produced synthetic fertilizer feeding over half the planet and several billion people would die of starvation.
Only the very wealthy could afford to eat with food prices likely 20+ times higher than now.
Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
The wonderful climate optimum in 2024 is treating most life to the best weather/climate and CO2 conditions since humans evolved. Not despite humans but because of humans!
DeathbyGREENING!
40 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Declaring a climate "emergency" during a scientific climate OPTIMUM for life because of an increase of beneficial CO2 and beneficial warming for most life is about as scientifically fraudulent as it gets.
It is true, however that we've superimposed around 2 deg. F of warming on the mid latitudes over the last 100 years. This does mean heat waves in the Summer in some places will be 2 deg. F hotter.
The atmosphere holds 7% more moisture so heavy rain events have increased( global drought has NOT increased).
Sea levels are increasing at just over 1 inch/decade(a foot in the last century).
And some hurricanes can strengthen much more rapidly...while violent tornadoes have decreased because of the less extreme meridional temperature gradient.
Is that an emergency?
If we went back to the climate of 100 years ago, which they want us to think was the perfect climate before humans burning fossil fuels changed it, that would cause 1 billion people to die of starvation within 3 years because crop production would drop 26% just from the lower CO2.
Take out the benefits from warming and take out the fossil fuel produced synthetic fertilizer feeding over half the planet and several billion people would die of starvation.
Only the very wealthy could afford to eat with food prices likely 20+ times higher than now.
Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
++++++++++++++++
Almost all the technology that we have, along with the life saving benefits because of it has come from fossil fuels:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/102980/#103409
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/102980/#103410
+++++++++++++
This "net zero" fairy tale future is completely made up so that they can use the fake carbon pollution, fake climate crisis narratives to sell political agenda, crony capitalism, corrupt/junk science funding, misinformed but often sincere environmentalism and sensationalizing, ratings seeking activist media.
As a PRACTICING environmentalist, the most outrageous thing about this is the wasting of good money for bad things. In many cases, the completely counterproductive use of resources......many trillions aimed at a NON problem.
In some cases, like wind turbines, it creates a new and much worse problem!
Therealenvironmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources-REAL pollution in the air/soil/water-WIND TURBINES (metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist):
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27498/
Ironically, in 2024 fossil fuels are SAVING millions of lives NOT taking them. Sustaining many billions of lives with food, not taking them.
Providing the life saving technological advancements.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/102980/#103409
The increase in CO2 from 290 ppm to the current 425+ppm and increase in global temperatures of almost 2 deg. F is actually helping to PROTECT us from events like that from happening again.
Going back more than a century to the climate and CO2 levels then, would result in at least 1 billion people on this planet dying from starvation within 3 years. Food production would plunge 26% just from the negative impact of 130 ppm less CO2.
For every +5 ppm of CO2, on average we see a 1% increase in plant growth and crop yields with that widely varying for each crop.
Taking away the synthetic fertilizer made with fossil fuels feeding over half the planet would likely starve close to 3 billion. Only the most wealthy could afford to eat with food prices going more than 20 times higher.
There no denying the 96% plunge in climate related deaths the past century........that is for people that want to look at the authentic science/data.
https://www.thetelegraph.com/opinion/article/why-truth-weather-disasters-matters-bjorn-18806809.php
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fewer-people-die-from-climate-related-natural-bjorn-lomborg
https://nypost.com/2022/04/30/deaths-in-climate-disasters-declined-99-from-a-century-ago/
That’s why the disaster database’s own experts explicitly warn amateurs not to conclude that an increase in registered disasters equates to more disasters in reality. Reaching such a conclusion “would be incorrect” because the increase really just shows improvements in recording.
++++++++++++++++
I have to get back to the REAL climate emergency that this planet had from 1876-1878.
3% of the global population died from famine/starvation. 50,000,000 died!
Today, that would equate to 240,000,000 people dying from a REAL climate emergency. The equivalent of more than 2/3rds of the population of the United States!
However, this was all part of NATURAL variability.
It really boils down to this, once again(Cliff Mass can be counted on as an elite source for using objective, authentic science)
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The GoldenRule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDENRULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
This is one of the risks this planet had when CO2 levels were dangerously low after centuries of global cooling.
These pictures are shocking and moving more than any worded description of what this particular climate emergency caused in the 1870's BEFORE we BENEFICIALLY CHANGED THE CLIMATE!!!!!
As mentioned on the previous page, this was from natural variability but the rock solid fact is that the lower the CO2 and lower the global temperature is the MORE EVENTS LIKE THIS WILL HAPPEN.
I've now spent some time studying this event and am convinced that the biggest factor that caused the record EXTREME severity of the FAMINE was the dangerously LOW CO2 levels.
Natural variation was what caused the weather/climate event. LOW CO2 caused the impact on that natural weather/climate to be WORSE. On top of that those same conditions greatly amplified the damage to crops which are protected with higher CO2 levels. This is based on the authentic science using physical laws that I'll show right now.
The exact same natural weather patterns today would NOT have the same disastrous impact on these same regions, thanks to the much higher, entirely beneficial and protective CO2.
Here an attempt to describe the events from a meteorological standpoint 150 years later. Keep in mind that there were only a small fraction of accurate weather instruments measuring the weather outside of the United States in the 1870's.
So there's a lot of extrapolating and guesswork, including climate model simulations which are NOT observations and NOT reliable but the best guesses that we can make. They make this claim:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/23/jcli-d-18-0159.1.xml
From 1875 to 1878, concurrent multiyear droughts in Asia, Brazil, and Africa, referred to as the Great Drought, caused widespread crop failures, catalyzing the so-called Global Famine, which had fatalities exceeding 50 million people and long-lasting societal consequences. Observations, paleoclimate reconstructions, and climate model simulations are used 1) to demonstrate the severity and characterize the evolution of drought across different regions, and 2) to investigate the underlying mechanisms driving its multiyear persistence. Severe or record-setting droughts occurred on continents in both hemispheres and in multiple seasons, with the “Monsoon Asia” region being the hardest hit, experiencing the single most intense and the second most expansive drought in the last 800 years.
The severe and widespread 1876–78 drought in multiple grain-producing regions of the world was induced by natural SST variability. Therefore, such a global-scale event might happen again. With the projected intensification of El Niño–induced hydroclimate anomalies due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and global warming (Seager et al. 2012; Cai et al. 2014), such widespread droughts could become even more severe.
+++++++++++++
I disagree 100% that the same thing could become even more severe because of rising greenhouse gas concentrations and global warming.
It's the lack of following authentic science that causes them to be wrong and why our experts in climate science that provide mainstream climate information and interpretations like this that are operating in ignorance with greatly flawed assumptions and projections which completely miss key factors.
AND I WILL PROVE IT RIGHT NOW!
Here's a graph of atmospheric CO2 going back 220+ years.
Since 1959, the readings have been accurately measured at the Mauna Loa, Hawaii Observatory. Prior to that, they came from ice cores with trapped CO2(not quite as accurate).
CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere. So the CO2 level in India in the 1870's was almost the same as the CO2 level in the United States that same year.
The amount of atmospheric CO2 in 1878 was likely around 290 parts per million.
Here, in 2024, the atmospheric CO2 is approaching its seasonal high at almost 425 ppm based on the last monthly value, March and will probably get to 426 or more before it starts dropping until around November.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
* Thanks to Jean, I have an update using this DAILY link. CO2 is currently at 428.59 and likely to peak at 429 ppm or so before dropping for 6 months. Also, this is 4 ppm higher than 1 year ago so the short term increase has ACCELERATED higher(ironically after years of being told that we need to achieve NET ZERO by 2050 and all the extreme measures being taken-of course China and India are massively increasing CO2 based on authentic science and energy principles and we can't stop them)
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
For convenience sake, let's say the CO2 level is 425 ppm in 2024.
This means that the CO2 has increased by 135 ppm since the year 1878. This is the key metric that we want to focus on and everybody should be able to agree on this number because we have good data measuring the changes.
https://sealevel.info/co2.html
Here's a more precise graph below that shows the yearly swings that coincide with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. Every year, after the long cold Winter and vegetation being dormant or not seeded/planted yet, the rate of CO2 increasing accelerates with the peak usually in late Spring (May?). At that point, plants in the middle/high latitudes come back to life and gobble up CO2 faster than emissions and it drops for around 6 months.
On average the increase in the Winter/early Spring is around 2 ppm greater than the drop in Summer/Fall. So up 6 ppm, followed by a drop of 4 ppm, for instance. Or +X+2, the first 6 months, then -X the 2nd 6 months each year. It can vary from year to year but we've added almost 70 ppm in 34 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091999/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/
We should all be able to agree that humans burning fossil fuels are what caused most of this.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/visualizing-changes-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1900/
This page is still just educational background information.
Hopefully, with universal agreement that our atmosphere has added around 135 ppm of CO2 since 1878 we can proceed by applying agronomy/plant science to have an extremely good idea of what the response was by plants, when there was 135 ppm LESS CO2 in the atmosphere during the 1870's.
Hopefully, EVERYBODY should agree on this indisputable law
Photosynthesis takes short wave radiation energy and heat out of the atmosphere and converts it to chemical energy that gets stored in plants.
Animals can consume plants and burn that chemical energy via metabolic activities.
Millions of years ago, the earth and its oceans were covered with massive amounts of plants and had a much higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Those plants consumed solar energy their entire lives, then died and were buried far below the surface With their stored chemical energy and carbon sequestered underground. Over time that material decomposed and became concentrated with huge deposits having collected as a liquid/crude oil, solid/coal and gas, natural gas/methane.
Today we retrieve these ancient decomposed fossils and burn the stored chemical energy from the sun. This releases the beneficial gas, CO2 (the building block of life) back into the atmosphere, where it came from while converting the stored chemical energy into other forms of energy like electrical energy at power plants.
That released CO2 can then be gobbled up by plants, once again In tandem with them consuming solar radiation in photosynthesis again. Like before this gets converted to chemical energy which is stored in the plants.
Its like the circle of life….except using plants, CO2 and solar energy.
Here is data from many thousands of experiments at this site (with the most comprehensive data bank in the world) for almost every plant testing them at various levels of CO2 enrichment, holding other factor the same......only increasing the CO2.
Follow the instructions to access all of it.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#71266
When we look at the increase in crop yields in the real world. we have all sorts of changing variables that are helping to boost yields........better fertilizers(from fossil fuels) better hybrids and so:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#71265
The experiments at the first link keep all other variables the same AND ONLY CHANGE THE CO2.
Around a decade ago, I did a study with dozens of plants and came up with roughly an extremely conservative 1% increase in growth for every +5ppm increase in CO2. There are wide variations, depending on the plant and whether they use the C3 or C4 pathways to fixate CO2.
If somebody thinks they have a better study, send it to me but in this discussion we will use +1% for every +5 ppm in CO2, even though the actual rate 100 years ago was very likely GREATER than that. That means the +135 ppm in CO2 since 1878 is causing a +27% increase in plant growth.
We have massive additional confirmation of this in the NON CROP world. Natural vegetation/trees are only responding to the CO2 and weather/climate.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
++++++++++++++
Global models that take photosynthesis strongly into account have a completely DIFFERENT projection the next 75 years Compared to flawed global climate models not dialing in photosynthesis.
Global Green Up Slows Warming
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
++++++++++++
Instead of killing the planet, like we are constantly told will happen if CO2 emissions are not cut to near 0, the photosynthesis model is still GREENING the planet big time from 2081-2100, consistent with the last 150 years and the indisputable law of photosynthesis and the benefits with modest global warming.
Their rate of increase is similar to my conservative +1% for every 5 ppm. Lets say they expect CO2 to increase at 2 ppm/year for 75 years and be at around 575 ppm in 2100. Then they increase plant growth by 20% from an increase in CO2 of 150 ppm, which is around +1% for every + 7 ppm....but the increase in additional gains SLOWS DOWN as CO2 increases Following the law of diminishing returns And photosynthetic curves as shown previously.
"The paper’s authors reviewed more than 250 published articles that have used satellite data, modeling, and field observations, to understand the causes and consequences of global greening. Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants."
metmike: Why isn't this paper, based on 250 published articles .......getting much mainstream news coverage?
Now, lets learn a bit more and APPLY IT.
Greenhouses know more about growing plants than anybody. Here's a wonderful recent authentic plant science discussion from a greenhouse, chosen because Graphs and charts are pictures worth a thousand words.
This article was written by Oklahoma State University to educate greenhouse growers about CO2 enrichment on plants. The objective is completely independent of their opinion on climate change which is never mentioned or never implied.
Far too much mainstream research on this topic is married to an alarmist narrative and assumption that CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming of the planet based on flawed global climate model simulations of the future atmosphere using mathematical equations that can’t accurately represent the impact of changes in factors like clouds and the massive greening of the planet from photosynthesis.
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html
Several important things to note from this graph.
1. When CO2 gets just below 200 ppm, photosynthesis SHUTS DOWN. Look at the range above and think about where atmospheric CO2 was on this graph in the 1870's at just 290 ppm.on the far left!! If we had dropped just 100 ppm, (instead of increasing 135 ppm) none of us would be here. Our planet was in extreme CO2 starvation mode and at the steepest part of the curve where small changes have the biggest impact.
2. It's tough to line things up perfectly but let’s track along the path of the line from 290 ppm to 425 ppm. I get closer to a 70% change (80% to 150%) from 1870's to 2024. . Since this coincides to one of the steepest parts of the curve(low CO2) its actually a very reasonable value but lets just call it 60% to be safely conservative.
3. So the rate of increase in photosynthesis was probably more like +1% for every +3 ppm increase before the year 1900 and has slowed a bit in recent years to around +1% every +5 ppm and later this century will be more like +1% for every +7 ppm.
4. The rate of increase in growth starts flattening out with increasing CO2 and tops out at just over 1,000 ppm. I've been stating that 900 ppm is the optimal level to be conservative and it varies by plant. For wheat, numerous studies show it as just over 900 ppm.
+++++++++++++++++
This next graph is where we really learn something new that NEVER gets discussed but is extremely profound.
Temperature plays a big role in the rate of plant growth. Most biological processes increase with increasing temperature and this includes the rate of photosynthesis.
But the optimum temperature for maximum photosynthesis depends on the availability of CO2. The higher the amount of available CO2, the higher the optimum temperature requirement of crops (Figure 2). In a greenhouse supplemented with CO2, a dramatic increase in the growth of plants can be observed with increasing temperature. Supplemental CO2 increases the optimum temperature requirement of a crop. This increases production even at higher temperature, which is not possible at the ambient CO2 level.
Supplemental CO2 affects the physiology of plants through stomatal regulation. Elevated CO2 promotes the partial closure of stomatal cells and reduces stomatal conductance. Stomatal conductance refers to the rate of CO2 entering and exiting with water vapor from the stomatal cell of a leaf. Because of reduced stomatal conductance, transpiration (loss of water from leaf stomata in the form of water vapor) is minimized and results in an increased water use efficiency (WUE) (ratio of water used in plant metabolism to water lost through transpiration). Lower stomatal conductance, reduced transpiration, increased photosynthesis and an increase in WUE helps plants to perform more efficiently in water-stressed conditions. Supplemental CO2 reduces water demand and conserves water in water-scarce conditions.
++++++++++++++++++++++
1. The higher the CO2 level is in the atmosphere, the better that plants do with increasing temperatures compared to plants with lower CO2.
2. The higher the CO2 level is in the air, the better that plants do in drought Compared to a lower CO2.
There are numerous studies that show this same thing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9495351/
The potential of elevated CO2 ameliorating the effects of water deficit stress is evident from literature, which suggests that these two agents are brothers in arms protecting the plant from stress rather than partners in crime, specifically for water deficit when in isolation. The possible mechanisms by which this occurs will be discussed in this minireview. Interpreting the effects of short-term and long-term exposure of plants to elevated CO2 in the context of ameliorating the negative impacts of drought will show us the possible ways by which there can be effective adaption to crops in the changing climate scenario.
+++++++++++++++++
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96037-9
This study highlighted the interactive impacts of three important abiotic factors likely to coexist under natural settings (water, temperature, and CO2) on soybean plant productivity. The WS and eCO2 both reduced plant water uses by reducing canopy transpiration. However, a substantial increase in water use efficiency was primarily found under eCO2(elevated CO2) In contrast, the warmer temperature of this study (MHT) consistently increased water use and canopy evapotranspiration while decreasing the water use efficiency across CO2 and irrigation treatments. Results showed that canopy photosynthesis, biomass accumulation, and seed yield responded uniquely to the different combinations of treatments. The WS had the greatest impacts on plant productivity across CO2 and temperature regimes. However, when WS was applied in combination with eCO2, the decreases in traits such as canopy photosynthesis, biomass accumulation, and seed yield were lesser regardless of the temperature treatment. Remarkably, a positive impact of warmer than OT of this study (i.e., MHT) on these traits was also found but only at eCO2……elevated CO2. This study indicates that CO2 fertilization will benefit soybean productivity in a climatic condition with moderately warmer than optimum temperature with limited but consistent water availability.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1604581113
The demand for water by the atmosphere is widely predicted to increase due to climate change (1). It is commonly inferred that this will cause droughts to become more widespread and severe (2). Many recent studies, however, ignore the impact of rising atmospheric CO2 on plant water use (3–11). Plants absorb CO2 through stomates in their leaves, and simultaneously lose water to the atmosphere by means of transpiration through the same pathway. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations allow plants to reduce water losses per unit of carbon gain (12), in part by reducing stomatal conductance when the gradient of CO2 between the atmosphere and the leaf interior increases. If leaf area stays the same, this physiological response has the potential to reduce water losses from the land surface, increase soil moisture, and reduce plant water stress (13)—the opposite effect of an increase in drought stress and aridity as predicted by many drought metrics (3, 14, 15). A plant-centric view may therefore suggest that ecosystem-level tradeoffs between water loss and photosynthesis under increasing CO2 are potentially large enough to reduce drought, despite the large projected increases in water demand from a warmer atmosphere.
Elevated CO2 and Water Stress in Plants
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27289
In a study with field experiments and process-based simulations [41], the researchers have shown that CO2 enrichment contributes to decreased water stress and also contributed to higher yields of maize under restricted water conditions. They showed from their studies that elevated CO2 decreases transpiration without any effect on soil moisture and at the same time it increases evaporation. Modelling has shown that water stress is reduced to an extent of 37 per cent under elevated CO2, a simulated increase in stomatal resistance being the reason for this.
We've been hearing/reading for 3 decades that climate change will cause extreme droughts that will impact food production based on flawed, speculative simulations of the climate/crops that have been completely wrong about massively increasing crop production and a greening planet.
Every year, its the same thing, as we are told its just a matter of time, as if the law of photosynthesis will be banned in the future.
In this current study, I only looked at what we know happened in the past, up until now. In this case from circa 1870s to 2024.
We can learn a heck of a lot by looking at the observations in the real world which should always get the most weighting to understand the real world. Even more than speculative climate model simulations. Here's what we knew already:
1. The CO2 has risen from ~290 ppm to ~425 ppm +135 ppm the last 150 years.
2. Its mostly from humans burning fossil fuels
Here's what we should have learned:
3. At 290 ppm, CO2 was dangerously low for life on earth. Plants were starving for CO2.
4. Crop yields were likely 60% lower in the 1870's just from the impact of less CO2.
5. In addition, higher CO2 levels cause plants to be much more drought tolerant/water efficient. It depends on the plants and though the effect is indisputable and LARGE, the amount is uncertain but one study gave us a figure of +37% during droughts which I'll use for convenience.
6. In addition, synthetic fertilizers from fossil fuels have increased crop yields by an additional 50%+ and those had not been invented in the 1870's. ..........but that's NOT climate, even though we will have synthetic fertilizers offsetting future adverse climate. So I don't count fertilizers.
7. The 1876-78 period was by far the worst global drought in recorded history. 3% of the global population died from famine because of the climate. At that time, CO2 was at a very deficient 290 ppm and the Little Ice Age had taken global temps down 2 deg. F from where they are today. This meant that growing seasons were 2 weeks shorter back then!
8. Adding 135 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere in the 1870's by itself, would have added ~60% to the global food production, purely from the indisputable impact of photosynthesis.
9. In addition it likely would have added another ~35% from CO2s proven ability to make crops drought tolerant(increasing yields in water starved crops).
10. We don't know much about the temperatures during those growing seasons. Droughts often feature heat waves, however global temperatures were -2 deg. F vs today, so we can't dial in benefits from CO2 from its heat protection(that will clearly be a bonus in our warmer future). We can speculate that the growing seasons, being 2 weeks shorter from global cooling in the middle latitudes, might have had an impact. Though we won't dial that in because its speculative for that period. I gf
11. Adding it all up and we get close to a 100% increase in global food production by superimposing the 2024 climate on top the 1878 climate using authentic, proven plant science/agronomy and observations in the REAL world.
12. How many lives would have been saved by doubling the food supply during those 3 years of global famine because of the added beneficial CO2 and beneficial warming? Of course that's only a hypothetical question (the global population would have been much greater-demand higher leading up to that if mankind had been blessed with that much CO2 in the years prior to the famine) to make us appreciate the huge positive impacts of increasing CO2 that we're experiencing today but ARE COMPLETELY TAKEN FOR GRANTED. The same impact that will continue to the year 2100 as shown by photosynthesis models if CO2 continues to increase.
14. Based on the REAL world, not the theoretical world..........why wouldn't it continue at even higher levels of CO2???
Answer: There is no AUTHENTIC, scientific reason for it to NOT continue. And it clearly will.
How important is food production to humans and other creatures (all animals eat plants or something that ate plants?
Answer: Ask the world in the 1876-78 era or the Dust Bowl 1930's or other extreme droughts (that used to be WORSE on crops before climate change helped so much) what they think or poor countries or poor families or people harmed by food inflation from supply side dynamics?
Do you think that the climate crisis narratives telling us that we are killing the (greening up) planet gives enough weight to photosynthesis (which also helps cool the planet and sequester CO2)?
15. That was fun!!!!! Enjoy the shared enlightenment. Please provide comments/critiques.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
16. Another element not discussed is that global cooling CAUSES lower CO2 levels. Most of the planets CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. There is an equilibrium between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 in the oceans. The warmer the sea water temperature, the more outgassing that takes place to maintain that equilibrium. Colder oceans will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. No doubt that during the Little Ice Age, cooler oceans meant that global CO2 levels were dropping a bit from this factor/oceanic uptake of CO2 and also from plants using it. However, plants around the world were not doing well when CO2 dropped below 300 ppm(which helped to conserve what was left).
MIKE... I READ MOST OF YOUR POSTS, UNTIL.... THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT ALWAYS FILL MY BRAIN WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.... FILLED MY BRAIN ; "HOW ACCURATE WERE THE READINGS ON WHATEVER MEASURING DEVICE THEY USED? WHAT WERE THOSE DEVICES?" ETC. ETC. ETC.????????? LOL WE HAVE SOME VERY INACCURATE MEASURING DEVICES, EVEN TODAY.
JUST LIKE THE OLD MAPS OF THE WORLD. LOL FLORIDA AIN'T NEAR AS BIG AS IT WAS....ALL THOSE YEARS AGO. IS THE WORLD SINKING? ARE THE WATERS RISING? WERE THE CALCULATIONS WRONG? ETC. ETC. ETC. (I CAN DRIVE MYSELF UP A WALL, TRYIN' TO FIGURE OUT WHICH IS FACT! IMO, I'LL NEVER KNOW.) WHO'S THE ONE THAT 1ST SAID THERE'S 5,280 FEET IN A MILE? WHAT DID THEY USE TO MEASURE WITH? WHY'D THEY CALL IT A MILE? WHY'D THEY CALL A FOOT A FOOT? AN INCH AN INCH?
Thanks much, Jean!
It's always good to be skeptical. In this case, there are several different categories of data.
1. Global CO2. Of all of them this is the most accurate. Since 1958/9 extremely accurate, direct instrumentation measurements. Prior to that indirect measurements using ice core data(bubbles of trapped air inside).
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/icecore_merged_products.html
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
2. Statistics on global famine and deaths. I can't vouch for this one from a scientific standpoint but feel confident that regardless of whether the numbers were OVER counted or UNDER counted, the climate catastrophe of 1876-78 was the worst global climate disaster in recorded human history.........which goes back thousands of years. There were numerous reliable sources reporting this during those 3 years.
3. The meteorology during this period. This is what I feel is the most questionable when it comes to using things like sparse ocean temperature data in order to explain the GLOBAL pattern that caused this. Regardless of how precise the data is, they got the overall patterns right and it really doesn't change the points in my study.
*4. You helped me a great deal with this question and how it relates to #1, Jean. I was just using the accurate monthly CO2 level from March earlier. In order to help you out, I found a better source, updated daily that's even MORE accurate to the day, instead of the month.
I was using 425 ppm CO2 from March and noting its still rising ahead of the Spring peak. Well its already at 428.59 as of April 26, 2024. So the peak will be at least 429 before rapidly increasing photosynthesis in the Northern Hemisphere consumes it faster than the emissions during our, just starting growing season.
++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/103492/#103552
* Thanks to Jean, I have an update using this DAILY link. CO2 is currently at 428.59 and likely to peak at 429 ppm or so before dropping for 6 months. Also, this is 4 ppm higher than 1 year ago so the short term increase has ACCELERATED higher(ironically after years of being told that we need to achieve NET ZERO by 2050 and all the extreme measures being taken-of course China and India are massively increasing CO2 based on authentic science and energy principles and we can't stop them)
Here's another excellent point about the need for 0 emissions of CO2 being hogwash.
Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/
A Modest CO2 Reduction Scenario
Now, let’s assume a 1% per year cut in emissions (both fossil fuel burning and deforestation) in each year starting in 2024. That 1% per year cut is nowhere near the Net Zero goal of eliminating CO2 emissions by 2050 or 2060, which at this point seems delusional since humanity remains so dependent upon fossil fuels. The resulting future trajectory of atmospheric CO2 looks like this:
This shows that rather modest cuts in global CO2 emissions (33% by 2063) would cause CO2 concentrations to stabilize in about 40 years, with a peak CO2 value of 460 ppm. This is only 2/3 of the way to “2XCO2” (a doubling of estimated pre-Industrial CO2 levels).
++++++++++++
As I demonstrated here:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/103492/#103552
Atmospheric CO2 levels during the Northern Hemisphere's growing seasons ALWAYS GOES DOWN, usually around 4 ppm because of photosynthesis. With the planet massively greening up, photosynthesis has INCREASED and is gobbling up more and more CO2 each year. Emissions are going up FASTER than this right now, however.
If we cut back to 0 emissions(impossible) the much greener planet and photosynthesis demand for CO2 would cause CO2 to CRASH much lower FAST.
This bs that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years is nonsense. Plants(and the ocean) are taking it out at an accelerating rate.
With NO human CO2 emissions(impossible but thats their stated goal), the level would quickly plunge to dangerously low levels again within a few decades.
Currently, if we are going up 6 ppm in the 6 months with only the Southern Hemisphere's and the tropics photosynthesis which might only be gobbling up 4 ppm (less than emissions), then down 4 ppm during our Summer because of photosynthesis, it suggests to me that humans are adding enough to increase CO2 in the absence of photosynthesis by 16 ppm(more last year) but photosynthesis is gobbling up around 12 ppm(3 ppm SH and 13 ppm NH?).
These are wild off the cuff guesses to make the point.
Take away human emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels suddenly today and initially the drop would be 16 ppm/year because of CO2 demand from plants that sequester it.
In short order, the greening planet impact WOULD BE REVERSED. This would reduce photosynthesis and the rate of CO2 decline would decrease too. However, even if that rate was 9 ppm/year for 2 decades, that would be a drop of 180 ppm. If we peaked around 460 ppm, that cause us to be down to 280 ppm again and mean plant starvation, like the world experienced 100+ years ago, struggling to grow enough food to supply less than 2 billion people with enough to eat.
Crop yields would plunge 60% just from the lower CO2 levels. All plants would experience much lower, stunted growth. Most crops would be less drought and heat resistant by over 30%.
Since the global population in 2080 will be closer to 10 billion, even with technological advancements, there would only be enough food to feed 5 billion people.
Again, this is based on the rock solid, indisputable law in science:
