CO2 Levels & Plant Nutrient Concentration
13 responses | 0 likes
Started by patrick - March 29, 2018, 8:35 a.m.

Not sure how significant this is, but a nice, long science article about the trends in plant growth, protein & mineral content, and doing science across specializations

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511

Comments
By metmike - March 30, 2018, 10:24 a.m.
Like Reply

Another article that twists facts around about a great positive to give the false impression that its a negative. 


We know with absolute certainty that the law of photosynthesis has not been repealed and thousands of scientific studies confirm the specific contribution to each plants growth and yield from the beneficial/key gas, CO2.  On average, the increase from 280 parts per million to 405 ppm has increased plant productivity by 26%(roughly 1% for every 5 ppm). 

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php

One can assume that the world has 26% more food just because of this.............from just the increase in CO2 by itself........not even considering the better weather/climate for crop growing the past 40 years. THe increase in CO2, also makes plants more drought tolerant. 

So how can this be a negative?

Well, some studies have shown that some plants with the 26% increase in production have up to a 10% smaller amount of a few  micronutrients.  This is true. This is what the story focuses on............calling it a "nutrient collapse" because of climate change.

To understand how misleading and absurd it is to take this position. Let's  REVERSE, the "climate change" and CO2 levels back to a century ago, with CO2 less than 300 ppm and a 1 degree colder global temperature and see what we would have.


26% LESS global food production....... not nearly enough food to feed 7.6 billion people. Crop prices would triple, widespread starvation and famine would occur...................however, the benefits would be that the crops would have a very  small increase in a couple of the micronutrients mentioned in this article.


By the way, many foods, like rice and wheat can be fortified with micronutrients. 


So which one is more important? The item they focus this article on(a few micronutrients or the one they intentionally do not?


http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/


Farmers would prefer higher prices and US farmers would be very wealthy if conditions reverted to a century ago but your crop yields would also plunge. 




By metmike - March 30, 2018, 10:46 a.m.
Like Reply

From the article:


"They also estimated that more than 1 billion mothers and 354 million children live in countries where dietary iron is projected to drop significantly, which could exacerbate the already widespread public health problem of anemia."


 They fail to tell you that many of them would starve to death if not for the increase in CO2 and the massive increase in  world food production its causing and that rice and other food items are fortified with iron. 


Another way to look at it. If these foods have 10% less micronutrients in them and people have 26% more of the food to eat, then they still get 16% more micronutrients and 26% more of everything else based on their scenario. This would be the people in 3rd world countries, living on the edge that need calories more than anything..........and increasing CO2 is increasing calories by 26%...........maybe only +16% more of some micronutrients though......but they want play with the math and count the +16% micronutrients, as being = -10% micronutrients because it's not a full 26% of the rest of the plant.


This  would be like car 1 and car 2 driving to a destination 260 miles away. Car 1 drives faster than car 2 and gets there after 4 hours,  while car 2 has only driven 160 miles. When car 1 gets there, did car 2 make 160 miles of progress towards the destination...........or did car 2 drive backwards 100 miles because that was the difference between them?


In this analogy, they are trying to say that car 2 drove backwards 100 miles and not forwards 160 miles. 


By patrick - March 30, 2018, 4:14 p.m.
Like Reply

I thought this might get your attention.

The other part of the story - that it's well established that food crops have become less nutrient dense for other reasons, and that this has reasonably well established effects, current, real, and larger than what the focus is - is pretty interesting too. Also, that protein content has dropped along with micronutrients.

I hope we all get that pushing agriculture to the limits to keep up with population growth has been a huge & noble effort.  And that it has costs.

By Vandenplas - March 31, 2018, 8:39 p.m.
Like Reply

MetMike:

Photosynthesis, as you well know, converts CO2 and water into carbohydrates (sugar) and oxygen.

Food, as you well know, consists of more than sugar.  You'd like for us idiots to believe that food is made up of just sugar. 

You will eventually learn about nutrition and food being more than just sugar.   But, please, keep up trying to show us how smart a scientific expert you are, and how 95% of the other scientific experts are fake and cultists.  Keep wooing us with authentic facts.   You have a loyal following here.  Keep playing to them (your base.)  


 

 

By metmike - March 31, 2018, 11:34 p.m.
Like Reply

Please provide us with 1 iota of data that contradicts any of my data.


Why does everything have to involve a personal attack with you?


I didn't state that you and others are idiots as you suggest. I am not trying to show how smart of a scientist that I am as you stated.


We actually have some intelligent people here, including you. Everybody here is very capable of understanding every bit of information that I've provided. 

Lack of accepting it or even considering it has nothing to do with intelligence. Not willing to look beyond ones belief system has everything to do with it.........stubbornness......lack of objectivity. Once somebody thinks that they know something, it's often impossible to get them to see they are wrong.


Brainwashed/cult like thinking prevails in many realms today. This is one of them. 


I am aware of the fact that it really doesn't matter how many times that I irrefutably prove my points, the same people that disagree, will never change and will always disagree.

Just so you know, in the 1990's, I was also a believer of man made, potentially catastrophic climate change but changed my tune after spending thousands of hours doing the research and analyzing the data. I have hundreds of sources/graphs and data.

If legit evidence of catastrophic climate change ever happens, I will be the first one to see it as a constant observer of the global atmosphere.


What we have now, over the past 4 decades. is the best weather/climate in 1,000 years..........since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm globally. 


This sounds like a big lie to those that have been told and believe that we are having unprecedented, extreme weather because of man mad climate change.


As I've shown numerous times, every severe drought, heat wave, hurricane or snowstorm in recent years has happened before. There is nothing unusual about recent extreme weather.......with the exception of the lack of violent tornadoes, which are at record lows because the  planets temp contrast has decreased(which decreases many types of extreme weather) and flooding, which IS at record highs because the slightly warmer atmosphere can hold a bit more moisture. 






By cliff-e - March 30, 2018, 6:06 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - March 30, 2018, 11:30 p.m.
Like Reply

"Everything good can be overdone and is not all good."


This is true cliff. The current level of atmospheric CO2 is 405 parts per million. The level at which harmful effects would start occurring is 1,200 ppm. We will never reach even half of that. If we do manage to ever get to 600 ppm, the massive benefits to plants will continue to go up. 

They can say whatever they want but the authentic, comprehensive research from thousands of studies proves this conclusively and they area flat out wrong to state otherwise:


Pick the name of a plant to see how much it benefitted. This is the site with more research results  than any other on the planet. 

http://co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php


Where are the results of all their research to prove otherwise? It's non existent because they are wrong. Saying it does not make it so. Scientific America and the American Meteorological Society, have sadly turned mouthpieces/cheerleaders using junk climate science. No authentic proof-just climate model projections that use mathematical equations to represent a speculative theory that is busting badly in the real world. 

The last 4 decades have featured the best weather/climate for life, especially for plants on this greening planet:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


Technology growing crops certainly has been beneficial but that is not making the rest of the plant world much more productive, regardless of the location or type of plant. Use some critical thinking. If climate change is hurting plants, why are they becoming massively more productive and the planet greatly greening up?

Somebody is not telling the truth. Either the plants are lying or the people that claim plants will be harmed are. 

They  state this:

"A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels"

 If you increase food for these people by 26%.....these are the ones trying to barely survive because they have just enough food/calories to sustain their lives.... and it has 10% less iron... that still equates to 15% more iron.  26% -10% does not equal -10%. That is still +16%.


Taking away that 26% of food that the increase in CO2 has caused and hundreds of millions or more would die of starvation. How absurd to blame the thing that is saving all these lives by providing calories......for  causing anemia. CO2 fed crops do not take iron out of peoples bodies. 

They are correct that some crops will be limited by the element in photosynthesis that is too low in order to take advantage of other favorable elements that are in excess supply. As it turns out, the limiting factor in many to most situations is the CO2. CO2 is still much too low. This is why increasing it, is having such a massively positive response. This will continue, even at double the current level.


Had CO2 dropped from the dangerously low level of 280 ppm(instead of increased), plants would have shut down completely.


A way to think about this is how a plant responds if you give it only 50% of the H2O that it requires to maximize growth.  You can have plenty of sunshine, CO2 and Nitrogen but it will not reach its potential........until you add up to double the amount of water.  As you add the water/limiting factor-the plant responds.


Greenhouses use carbon dioxide enrichment generators to boost CO2 levels to 1,200 ppm because they know the atmospheric CO2 levels, at just 405 ppm are a big limiting factor. Twisting that irrefutable fact with misleading statements based on a political belief system is junk science.  To say that benefits of increasing CO2 will max out because of other limiting factors is complete bs. Benefits will continue to over 1,000 ppm for many plants.


For most of its history that featured life on this planet, CO2 levels were much higher than this. We actually rescued life from dangerously low levels of CO2.  It's absurd to claim that the CO2 level and global temperature on earth 100 years ago was the optimal level for life.  We are to believe, that after millions of years, planet earth magically hit the optimal level of CO2 and temperature, just before 1900 and just before humans started burning fossil fuels  because a group of humans tell us this?

Think for yourselves and use my data links with the actual evidence that prove they are wrong as assistance. 

Fact is that plants were experiencing CO2 starvation. There were many crop failures and famines in the centuries previous to this. Global temperatures were very chilly for most of life and we were coming out of the very harsh, "Little Ice Age".

The 1 deg. increase in global temperature has been beneficial to most life(which is asking for more warmth). The 125 ppm increase in CO2 has been massively beneficial to all life which would prefer it to be double the current level. 


What we've been told about CO2 being carbon pollution is a big lie. For one thing, CO2 is a gas and carbon is a solid. Referring to it as "carbon" would be the same as referring to H2O as hydrogen. In fact, 95% of the greenhouse gas effect on this planet comes from H2O. Is this hydrogen pollution?


You will believe otherwise because you have decided its so. You can continue to post links to stories "saying" things that support your belief system. 


My links are not stories or words from other people that say what I'm claiming to be a fact. I show the data. The data is the proof. Regardless of what you say, and your sources say..........the data is the proof.


Anybody can find numerous stories on the internet that say anything.  Show me some data.


Show me data that supports increasing drought. You can't because global drought  has decreased a bit the last 2 decades(thanks to the increase in rainfall that comes with a slightly warmer planet):

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdata20141-f51.jpg


Even the worlds deserts are greening up a bit:

https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2


CO2 causes plants to be more water efficient. Not because I say so or because I can find an article on the internet to post here that says it, but because they don't need to open their stomata as much to get CO2 and don't transpire as much. It also protects them in higher thermal environments.

https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/




By cliff-e - March 31, 2018, 9:42 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - March 31, 2018, 11:08 p.m.
Like Reply

Praise the Lord, it appears that cliff has seen the light! 


Your first link shows everything that I've been posting about. 


The 2nd one has some excellent facts mixed in with a massive amount of speculation, some of which has already been proven to be completely wrong. 


This statement for instance:


"However, warmer temperatures also stress plants. With a longer, warmer growing season, plants need more water to survive. Scientists are already seeing evidence that plants in the Northern Hemisphere slow their growth in the summer because of warm temperatures and water shortages.

 

Dry, water-stressed plants are also more susceptible to fire and insects when growing seasons become longer. In the far north, where an increase in temperature has the greatest impact, the forests have already started to burn more, releasing carbon from the plants and the soil into the atmosphere. Tropical forests may also be extremely susceptible to drying. With less water, tropical trees slow their growth and take up less carbon, or die and release their stored carbon to the atmosphere."


The planet is greening up in a massive way. Tropical forests, deserts, northern areas, the entire planet. Global drought has decreased. The above statement by them suggests otherwise. 


See the previous links that prove this. 

One of the biggest impacts from climate change/weather has been the INCREASE in rains and increase in soil moisture in more areas than those reporting a decrease. 

With regards to warmer temperatures stressing plants.....this is true in some cases. However, daytime highs have not warmed much but nights have. A plant like corn does not like very warm, muggy nights during kernel filling.


However, the biggest warming, by a wide margin, has been in the coldest places, during the coldest times of year(and during the coldest time of day-night).

This is not a bad thing. 


This is why the Arctic Winters have warmed so much. 

Summer heat waves have not increased  so much and not at all in the USA, so Summer heat on plants/crops has not increased.


Below is the data to prove it, not just say things(speculate)  like your 2nd source did:


https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes


By cliff-e - April 1, 2018, 7:57 a.m.
Like Reply
By cutworm - April 1, 2018, 10:42 a.m.
Like Reply

LMAO 

By Vandenplas - April 1, 2018, 1:05 p.m.
Like Reply

Entertaining, indeed.

By metmike - April 1, 2018, 2:05 p.m.
Like Reply

Hilarous cliff!


On the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I agree that its going up and its causing some (beneficial)warming. My estimate is that half of the 1.3 deg. C of warming in the last century has been from the increase in CO2. This is the amount supported by the physics of its ability to capture and re radiate long wave radiation coming from the surface of the earth.

This effect of warming from CO2 is logarithmic........meaning that the more and more that you add, the less and less the effect.

https://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/

This means that the only way to keep warming going at the current rate of 1.3 deg. C/century is for CO2 levels to accelerate up at a much faster rate or for there to be massive positive feedback from an increase in H2O...........and this does not take into account changes in the natural climate cycles that will add to or subtract from the greenhouse gas warming. 


Funny how climate change, is now synonymous with "man made" climate change. Up until recently, all climate change was natural climate change. It's as if somebody decided that natures cycles and natural climate change that ruled for millions of year.......... have been abolished and only human emissions from burning fossil fuels count now.........and they refuse to make adjustments to the speculative theory and busted global climate model projections because they, absurdly decided, as Al Gore stated over a decade ago: "The science is settled" "The debate is over"

I have learned the vast majority of what I know about this subject since that statement was made in 2007 and it contradicts much of that settled, closed minded science. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/18/is-climate-science-settled-because-it-cannot-be-settled/


Global climate models all triple the greenhouse gas warming from CO2 with H2O positive feedback. There has in fact been an increase in low level moisture(but also an increase in low level clouds and rain-including excessive rains, which are negative feedbacks...........but the real world warming has underperfomed the global climate model projections. 

The real world warming is at 1.3 deg/Century. Models have it double that and many alarmists, in the face of the real world lower rate, have doubled down on their position by stating that its worse than they thought and are using verbiage/statements to create fear and cy out for emergency/immediate actions. 

On the graph, why did the source cherry pick on the geological time frame for the CO2 and only show CO2 going back to periods that were lower than this? Let's show the entire picture of atmospheric CO2 going all the way back for proper perspective:


https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png


Keep in mind that I don't believe alot of data from millions of years ago(or even 100,000 years ago) is very reliable, even though its presented as authoritative. 

Scientists that tell us about this use very unreliable proxy data and can state things with impunity because there isn't anything else available from, let's say 200,000,000 years ago to prove them wrong.