Hiya MetMike. What you think? https://www.skepticalscience.com/
That is probably the worlds biggest climate science disinformation site.
They take a field(climate science) that few people understand or have data for and use a bunch of real climate science combined with anti science to spin a fake climate crisis out of a climate optimum.
Then, they pretend that they are the complete opposite of what they are and accuse those that disagree with them of doing what they do.
Supposedly objective and open minded, they are the exact opposite of that. They start with a climate crisis and interpret(spin) all data to support the crisis, with very little skepticism or objectivity and one of the top priorities, is to discredit people like me (so called deniers) that are actually using scientific skepticism/the scientific method and letting the data lead us vs subjectively interpreting data so it only supports one thing and ignoring all data that doesn't show it.
They even did a bogus (manipulated use of the results) study that supposedly showed 97% of climate scientists agreed with him on the climate crisis.
John Cook, who runs it, has probably contributed to more people getting dumber about climate and CO2 using internet sources than any one person on the planet.
John Cook and his team looked at tens of thousands of papers that don't support his position but he twists them to make you think they do. 97% of climate scientists(including me) believe that humans have caused varying amounts of global warming/climate change, some more than others. This is what he found. If that was his position...................no problems. But he believes that we are having a climate crisis from the beneficial warming. This is NOT what those 97% stated at all. Only a small fraction of them believe that we are having a climate crisis and the vast majority, like me DISAGREE with his view.
I actually PROVE that we are indisputably having a climate OPTIMUM for life on this greening planet with all my empirical data/research. Not despite climate change/global warming but BECAUSE OF IT.
Keep in mind, for the past 38 years, almost every day, all day long, I analyze the global atmosphere and have spent the past 2 decades studying climate and applying this to the real world that includes predicting crop yields/food production and energy use.
I haven't published any peer reviewed stuff using the information that I've observed and learned and I'm not as smart at math as some of the PHD climate modelers that program computers to simulate the weather/climate for the next 100 years using mathematical equations but I have, instead published 3 dozen articles/discussions, generously sharing it here with others that want the truth.
You will not find the truth in global climate models, that have all been too warm for decades and been discredited by all objective sources.............but continue to be relied on as evidence of the crisis. You will find the truth by observing what has been happening in the REAL atmosphere for the last 100 years and how its affected the REAL life on this REAL planet...............not a simulated world and from people using worst case and exaggerated scenarios that don't match up with the REAL world. Almost all of their apocalyptic predictions have been wrong for more than 3 decades now.
Funny thing. 3 decades ago, I actually believed much of it about the crisis. Fortunately for me, my profession as an operational meteorologist allowed me to understand the atmosphere better than those continuing the catastrophic predictions. I have learned a tremendous amount during that time because the science is NOT settled as many insisted 15 year ago(Gore for instance). But what about Joe and Jill non climate experts that only get their information from the gatekeepers?
One of those gatekeepers is John Cook the climate charlatan. I would love to have a debate with him or anybody else that represents the fake climate crisis.
Ironically, he spends a great deal of time trying to convince everybody that people like me are the ones spreading misinformation:
Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change
John Cook George Mason University, USA
It's convincing sounding scientific frauds like him.........that have a 10,000 times bigger following than I will ever have that make my mission to enlighten people with the truth(about the fake climate crisis) a futile effort but still worth it since, at least, some people have come to better understand authentic, climate truths based on science not politics .
This is my stuff:
...using data, from the viewpoint of an atmospheric scientist that has analyzed weather and climate almost every day for the past 38 years. I'm just reporting how the atmosphere and life on this planet is responding.......and how/why the politics hijacked climate science for global socialism/Marxism.
Climate Reality discussions-new article 2-24
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
So John and skeptical science talk a convincing sounding game using words and sometimes cherry picked data as well as leaving out most of the wonderful benefits that this climate optimum is having for most life. (Don't you ever wonder why you don't read about the benefits associated with climate change?..........oh, except for ticks and roaches and mosquitoes and weeds and virus's......somehow, all bad life flourishes on climate change but the same climate change.........kills all good life. Weird.
Actually, if you have some objective brain cells you know that can't possibly be the truth. Only in politics, is the beneficial gas CO2 defined as pollution and the current climate optimum defined as a crisis...........wait, the latest word that sounds even more scary is the climate emergency.
Less than 10 years to go before we destroy the planet. Better do what they say this time (-: They didn't really mean it the last 31 years, when they said the exact same thing every year. This time is for real (-:
You know that story, "The boy who cried wolf"?
If he cried wolf 31 times in a row and the village people came running to him each time, with no signs of a wolf 31 times in a row, instead of it being a lesson to children to not give false alarms or you will never be believed when you tell the truth, the lesson would be much different.
People can be gullible creatures that will believe/buy anything and forget common sense if you package the product with the right marketing scheme(s)..........."saving the planet".....after all, who could possibly be against saving the planet...........outside of us deniers that don't believe in the climate model fairy tale forecasts!
PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Thanks for the confirmation...
I think we've discussed ice sheets melting is accelerating. Do they get this one right?
Perfect example of their science disinformation campaign.
Melting ice is NOT accelerating.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/47847/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Climate Science Settled?
By metmike - March 8, 2020, 2:45 p.m.
Climate alarmists say they love Arctic sea ice, but for some reason get very angry when they are shown that it is not disappearing http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
They hate it when you say "polar bears aren't dying like you climate alarmists were predicting." You would think they would be happy about such things.
Arctic sea ice right now is HIGHER than it was on this date in 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.
Also, if you do the plots of 2014 and 2013, you will see that Arctic ice has been HIGHER for much of the year than when we bottomed out in 2012.
Go to this link and hit those years to see the plot.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
I am not saying that it will continue with the trend but they are lying to say that the melt is accelerating if its been mostly steady to going the other way for 8 years.
John is not dumb. He gets these graphs and information. This is intentional.
He's a climate charlatan. I can bust all of his stuff with authentic data but people come to his site and listen to his convincing sounding fake science and doctored graphs/info and believe him.
From your link, this is what climate charlatan Cook states:
"Ice is melting at accelerating rates in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland, and glaciers all over the world."
Use the authentic data from this atmospheric scientist at MF to bust that MF not from MarketForum.
Some critical thinking here.
If ice melt was accelerating(sea ice is already floating in the sea and melting it won't cause the sea levels to go up much) then sea levels should be rapidly accelerating higher.............they aren't.
The sea level continue to go up just over 1 inch..........per decade, similar to the last 150 years with a tiny increase in recent decades.
See the objective, authentic data/science below.
Antartica Ice Melt
28 responses |
Started by joj - April 11, 2019, 8:30 a.m.
Antarctic ice and sea levels/previous warmings-climate scientist corruption-IPCC: April 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27525/
Good stuff. Thanks MM
I've been told the skeptical whatevah is a great site for good data, so I've been looking and keep seeing things that don't seem to add up.
Thanks again for confirmation.
Tim,
"I've been told the skeptical whatevah is a great site for good data"
Let's really expose them here. Look at the graph that they show and note the dates at the bottom. WTHeck. No data from the last 9 years. This is intentionally deceptive because the most recent data from the last 8 years years shows that the ice has stopped melting in the Arctic and the peak melting, there and in Greenland was in 2012, so showing a graph to 2020 would show the ice melt is NOT accelerating.
They claim.
"Ice is melting at accelerating rates in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland, and glaciers all over the world."
This is their graph that suddenly stops in 2010.
 |        Is Greenland gaining or losing ice? |
|
https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
(Image source: Climate Signals.)
They intentionally don't have the last decade because it shows this below:
Below is data going thru 2019.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
metmike: Ice melt in the Arctic has come to a halt and is not accelerating at Greenland by definition of acceleration. If they wanted to be scientifically honest, they would show data thru this year and mention that the peak ice melt was in 2012.
Pass this on, so that people seeing it will stop telling others that this is a great site for good data.
Misleading, convincing looking data yes. Honest science and updated empirical data based on objective observations...........the worst by a wide margin considering the sheer number of brains that have stored bogus information from this site.
The less people we have hoodwinked into believing there is a climate crisis(during this climate optimum)........the better.
Here's the final debunking of this claim with the actual data from the Antarctic.
Not only is the ice loss NOT accelerating but the last 3 years have featured GAINS in ice(from the lows) that have us close to the 40 year average.
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index
Again, common sense tells us, knowing nothing about Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic ice that if sea levels are increasing at close to the same rate they have been for the last century(just over 1 inch/decade), then melting ice must not be accelerating as this source falsely claims.
Most of the worlds fresh water is locked up in Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets. If the melting ever did accelerate, the oceans would increase much more than they are now.
Brilliant PHd Scientists using mathematical equations and global climate model similations for the next xxx years have been telling us for decades that this will be happening.........sea levels will be XX feet higher in XX years.
Dummies like this atmospheric scientist from Yahoo Indiana who have been tracking the real atmosphere and planet by just observing it and taking note............the last 40 years have outperformed the models and brilliant scientists by a wide margin.
Ironically, they call me the denier. John Cook spends much of his time trying to convince everybody that I am a denier of climate science and to believe only him and not me.
What does the authentic data show?
That's what you should believe........not a person-even a scientist person even if they use convincing sounding words. Or a group like the IPCC(InterGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change) or governments with political agenda.
Or a teenager named Greta spouting anti science rhetoric to promote global socialism.
Especially don't believe the United Nations or the fraudulent Climate Accord on this topic.
Believe the authentic data and trust in yourself to think independently in order to see what the truth is.
You will note the 40 year trend, on the previous graph, denoted by the dashed line is for Antarctic ice to be slightly INCREASING.
Not my opinion. The data is the data, I'm just showing it.
This is exactly why the sea levels are NOT increasing at a rapidly accelerating rate as predicted by the climate crisis guru's.
If Antarctic ice ever starts melting fast...........and continues, then sea levels will go up faster.
That might happen.............but it hasn't, which makes the models and those saying it would for 4 decades WRONG.
I am not saying that it won't happen, I'm just following the authentic data. When it shows that its happening, then I will say that we have actual data to support it happening.
When the data shows for 4 decades that its not happening despite models insisting that entire time that it should be happening, what source does it make sense to believe.
The computer program simulations of a future world using mathematical equations that go into global climate models?
The real world?
GO GREEN@ECOWARRIORSS·Not in decades has our air been so clean as our Earth and natural world heals - Aviation cruise and fossil fuel industry demanding billions to once again pollute destroy our #climate - do not give them a cent unless they use green energy, work to save our climate not destroy it
metmike: Some climate activists are celebrating the coronavirus shutdowns because of the plunge in the use of fossil fuels and massively negative effects on natural resource consuming economies.
I say, its a wonderful example of how fossil fuel use has resulted in the incredible benefits to mankind, fueling economies and all the wonderful blessings that cause the quality of our lives and health to be light years better than 150 years ago.
And the beneficial CO2 that burning fossil fuels has blessed the planet with has rescued life from dangerously low levels of this gas.
Sound strange?
Then why is the planet greening up massively?
A dying planet does not green up every year for the past 40 years from the thing that is supposedly killing it!!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.Credits: Boston University/R. MyneniGreen leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
![High_Resolution[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/high_resolution1.png?resize=640%2C255)
Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010. Click for a full-sized and detailed image.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.
Now that you've seen the authentic data, what do you believe.
The data...............
or Skeptical Science/John Cook.
If you say Skeptical Science, you are banned(just kidding)
LOL, I had a very low level of confidence of SS to begin with. Your data confirmed :-)
Tim,
I know you well enough as somebody that bases their views on facts and critical thinking to know your view already but was posing the question to lurkers reading this stuff.
However, there are people much smarter than you and me(but not atmospheric scientists) that will go to that site, see their graph of ice melting in Greenland up until 10 years ago and think "Holy Cow, they must be right, the ice melt is accelerating in all those places"
The same places that I just proved, using authentic data to 2020 are not experiencing an acceleration in the ice melt.
The reason that it MUST BE presented as an acceleration vs a slower rate or pause in the melting of 10 years, then resuming(which would be scientifically honest) is that this is the only way it fits the climate crisis/emergency narrative.
With a climate emergency.........we MUST ACT NOW!
Without a climate emergency............we have plenty of time to see if actions are necessary.........if we even need to act at all because the fake cure for the fake crisis is 100 times worse than the fake disease.
The cure is global socialism of course and in the US, the Green New Deal that would cost tens of trillions of dollars and completely obliterate the economy.
With the current climate optimum in its early stages, most life should enjoy the beneficial increase in CO2(from near starvation below 300 ppm to the current 410 ppm) and the beneficial warming of just over 1 deg C.
Like it did for a few thousand years, just over 5,000 years ago when the Arctic and higher latitudes were much warmer than this. Note the same "OPTIMUM".
Not the Holocene climate crisis or Holocene climate emergency, the Holocence climate..........OPTIMUM! Because the warmer climate conditions were optimal for life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled the continent. 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 present.[5] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than the present.[6]
Wonderful article/discussion:
Emotional, agenda-driven politics confronts sound, evidence-based science
Dr Kelvin Kemm
The topic of global warming and climate change is far more scientifically complex than the public is led to believe.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/27/climate-change-ebb-and-flow-of-the-tide-part-1-of-3/
This particular source is the quintessential example of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_in_sheep%27s_clothing
A wolf in sheep's clothing is an idiom of Biblical origin used to describe those playing a role contrary to their real character with whom contact is dangerous, particularly false teachers.
Easy for them to manipulate data, make very misleading statements and exaggerate or even lie about the reality because nobody reading them has the weather/climate data, nor are they atmospheric scientists.
People can't research everything about every topic(ok, actually they can but who has the time and expertise). So they have to rely on convincing sources. Sadly, in today's age of the internet and media(half of which are progressive activists), the sources that we could once trust have a high priority of convinving us of their personal belief system.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
Let the truth prevail! Send anything and everything from Skeptical Science here to have it fact checked using authentic science.
Speaking of animals, the polar bear has been used as the climate crisis mascot.
The story of a resurgent polar bear population deserves to be told and applauded.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/
"On May 15, 2008, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is based on the assumption that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.
In a GWPF video released today, Dr Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, documents the latest findings about rising polar bear numbers.
In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.
Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.
A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice. "
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/12/inconvenient-stumps/
We’ve been told it is warming so fast, we have only 12 years left!
Yet nature seems to not be paying attention to such pronouncements, as this discovery shows.
"This photo shows a tree stump of White Spruce that was radiocarbon dated at 5000 years old. It was located 100 km north of the current tree line in extreme Northwest Canada."
"The area is now frozen tundra, but it was once warm enough to support significant tree growth like this.
If climate was this warm in the past, how did that happen before we started using the fossil fuels that supposedly made our current climate unprecedentedly warm?"
The melting ice, instead of releasing deadly virus's(as we are now being told during this pandemic).............is instead, revealing that it was this warm or warmer than this in the not so distant past(last time was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval WARM period)
This is the comment that I submitted:
That is probably the worlds biggest climate science disinformation site.
They take a field(climate science) that few people understand or have data for and use a bunch of real climate science combined with anti science to spin a fake climate crisis out of a climate optimum.
Then, they pretend that they are the complete opposite of what they are and accuse those that disagree with them of doing what they do.
Supposedly objective and open minded, they are the exact opposite of that. They start with a climate crisis and interpret(spin) all data to support the crisis, with very little skepticism or objectivity and one of the top priorities, is to discredit people like me (so called deniers) that are actually using scientific skepticism/the scientific method and letting the data lead us vs subjectively interpreting data so it only supports one thing and ignoring all data that doesn't show it.
They even did a bogus (manipulated use of the results) study that supposedly showed 97% of climate scientists agreed with him on the climate crisis.
John Cook, who runs it, has probably contributed to more people getting dumber about climate and CO2 using internet sources than any one person on the planet.
John Cook and his team looked at tens of thousands of papers that don't support his position but he twists them to make you think they do. 97% of climate scientists(including me) believe that humans have caused varying amounts of global warming/climate change, some more than others. This is what he found. If that was his position...................no problems. But he believes that we are having a climate crisis from the beneficial warming. This is NOT what those 97% stated at all. Only a small fraction of them believe that we are having a climate crisis and the vast majority, like me DISAGREE with his view.
I actually PROVE that we are indisputably having a climate OPTIMUM for life on this greening planet with all my empirical data/research. Not despite climate change/global warming but BECAUSE OF IT.
Keep in mind, for the past 38 years, almost every day, all day long, I analyze the global atmosphere and have spent the past 2 decades studying climate and applying this to the real world that includes predicting crop yields/food production and energy use.
I haven't published any peer reviewed stuff using the information that I've observed and learned and I'm not as smart at math as some of the PHD climate modelers that program computers to simulate the weather/climate for the next 100 years using mathematical equations but I have, instead published 3 dozen articles/discussions, generously sharing it here with others that want the truth.
You will not find the truth in global climate models, that have all been too warm for decades and been discredited by all objective sources.............but continue to be relied on as evidence of the crisis. You will find the truth by observing what has been happening in the REAL atmosphere for the last 100 years and how its affected the REAL life on this REAL planet...............not a simulated world and from people using worst case and exaggerated scenarios that don't match up with the REAL world. Almost all of their apocalyptic predictions have been wrong for more than 3 decades now.
Funny thing. 3 decades ago, I actually believed much of it about the crisis. Fortunately for me, my profession as an operational meteorologist allowed me to understand the atmosphere better than those continuing the catastrophic predictions. I have learned a tremendous amount during that time because the science is NOT settled as many insisted 15 year ago(Gore for instance). But what about Joe and Jill non climate experts that only get their information from the gatekeepers?
One of those gatekeepers is John Cook the climate charlatan. I would love to have a debate with him or anybody else that represents the fake climate crisis.
Ironically, he spends a great deal of time trying to convince everybody that people like me are the ones spreading misinformation:
Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change
John Cook George Mason University, USA
It's convincing sounding scientific frauds like him.........that have a 10,000 times bigger following than I will ever have that make my mission to enlighten people with the truth(about the fake climate crisis) a futile effort but still worth it since, at least, some people have come to better understand authentic, climate truths based on science not politics .
This is my stuff:
...using data, from the viewpoint of an atmospheric scientist that has analyzed weather and climate almost every day for the past 38 years. I'm just reporting how the atmosphere and life on this planet is responding.......and how/why the politics hijacked climate science for global socialism/Marxism.
Climate Reality discussions-new article 2-24
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
So John and skeptical science talk a convincing sounding game using words and sometimes cherry picked data as well as leaving out most of the wonderful benefits that this climate optimum is having for most life. (Don't you ever wonder why you don't read about the benefits associated with climate change?..........oh, except for ticks and roaches and mosquitoes and weeds and virus's......somehow, all bad life flourishes on climate change but the same climate change.........kills all good life. Weird.
Actually, if you have some objective brain cells you know that can't possibly be the truth. Only in politics, is the beneficial gas CO2 defined as pollution and the current climate optimum defined as a crisis...........wait, the latest word that sounds even more scary is the climate emergency.
Less than 10 years to go before we destroy the planet. Better do what they say this time (-: They didn't really mean it the last 31 years, when they said the exact same thing every year. This time is for real (-:
You know that story, "The boy who cried wolf"?
If he cried wolf 31 times in a row and the village people came running to him each time, with no signs of a wolf 31 times in a row, instead of it being a lesson to children to not give false alarms or you will never be believed when you tell the truth, the lesson would be much different.
People can be gullible creatures that will believe/buy anything and forget common sense if you package the product with the right marketing scheme(s)..........."saving the planet".....after all, who could possibly be against saving the planet...........outside of us deniers that don't believe in the climate model fairy tale forecasts!
PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Scientists coming out of the woodwork-no climate crisis! October 2019
Joseph Zorzin
“Don’t you ever wonder why you don’t read about the benefits associated with climate change?”
A recent paper by the Harvard Forest research facility, “Carbon budget of the Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research site: pattern, process, and response to global change”. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343425030_Carbon_budget_of_the_Harvard_Forest_Long-Term_Ecological_Research_site_pattern_process_and_response_to_global_change.
This paper says that forests have been growing much faster in the past few decades.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks Joseph Z.:
"This paper says that forests have been growing much faster in the past few decades."
Any authentic study/paper on tree growth, shows the exact same thing. We just don't hear about it very often and almost never from the main sources that tell us what they want us to think about this topic.
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2, by itself is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production.........all plant growth.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants.
Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Pick the name of a plant, any plant(or tree) using its starting letter. Let's pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics This was the data at the end of 2018
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 290 | 27 | 3 |
| Arithmetic Mean | 47.9% | 68.9% | 61% |
| Standard Error | 2.2% | 7.5 | 11.3% |
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics This was the latest data posted thru September 6, 2020
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 238 | 25 | 3 |
| Arithmetic Mean | 48.3% | 71.2% | 61% |
| Standard Error | 2.4% | 7.9 | 11.3% |
This tells us that there were 290 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 47.9% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
In the real world, in US soybean fields, yields have doubled in the last 30 years. During that time, CO2 levels have increased by something like 80 parts per million. Global temperatures have also increased by several tenths of a deg. C.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
The law of photosynthesis has not be repealed:
Sun +H2O +Minerals(from soil) +CO2--COVERTS TO--Sugars(food) +growth +O2
Since CO2 has been a limiting factor on the left side(plants were experiencing CO2 starvation before we rescued them), adding this beneficial gas is boosting the products on the right side. This will continue for CO2 levels up to more than double the current ambient atmospheric levels(for many plants).
