Here is a typical graph showing the change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 250+ years. 

Note early on that it was already increasing a bit before humans had an affect, probably from outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as the earth warmed up from the Little Ice Age.

They don't want you to know how life suffered greatly during the 1600/1700's during the Little Ice Age because cold kills 200 times more life(if you include plants) than heat on this planet. 

Cold still kills 15 times more humans than heat, down from 20 times more before global warming.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gsu.edu/dist/0/134/files/2014/05/CO2_1750-2010B-259v5qp.png

In 2020, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is close to 413 parts per million. One can estimate that over the last 100 years, humans have contributed 100 ppm to the level of CO2. The rate of increase followed a new, steeper uptrending curve higher around 60 years ago.

Even  if there were no cuts in emissions  and if we would not start running out of crude oil, which we would, CO2 levels would likely NOT exceed 600 ppm in the next 100 years. That would be an increase of almost 200 ppm in 100 years.............ain't gonna happen under any realistic scenario.

Now that you have that number 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2 in your mind as the top level that defines the highest it might ever get to, let's actually find out how 600 ppm CO2 affects the REAL life on this planet.

Fortunately, we have thousands of experiments that have tested every plant known to man  under various CO2 conditions. So we know with absolute certainty how those plants respond to elevated leveks of CO2..............well beyond 600 ppm

We can use these studies/growing experiments, in many cases to estimate what the OPTIMAL level of CO2 is for various plants and have a good idea what it is for most plants.

All animals eat plants or something that ate plants and having enough food to eat is the most important item in their environment for survival and procreating.

So in most cases the optimal level of CO2 for plant growth, would also increase the amount of food for animals in that environment.

Studies show(with rare exceptions)  that increasing the level of CO2 from the current 413 ppm to 600 ppm would increase plant growth and productivity. 

Based on the measured response to date in the real world and average, I like to use a 1% increase in plant growth for every 5ppm increase in CO2.  Some woody stemmed plants have more than double that. C3 plants like soybeans, also have a greater response than C4 plants like corn. 

However, the initial response so far, when plants were actually in CO2 starvation mode 100 years ago(seriously) is going to be greater than the response going forward.

Regardless, we have all the thousands of  experiments at the higher CO2 levels to know the EXACT science of this based on the indisputable law of photosynthesis. 

When CO2 gets to 500 ppm, we know how each plant will beneficially respond.

If CO2 ever got to 600 ppm, we know how it would positively respond.

Experiments tell us that the optimal level for many plants is around 900 ppm and for others it's even higher.

That includes crops that human use for food..........world food production, all things being equal would increase until CO2 hit 900+ ppm. 

But we are told that the nasty affects of climate change weather will be even greater and hurt plants even more than the benefits from atmospheric CO2 enrichment.

A couple of things to keep in mind.

1. The affects of increasing CO2 on plants are well known and documented by thousands of experiments. They are defined by  the irrefutable law of photosynthesis. They are 100% certain to benefit plants/crops.

2. The affects of climate change are based on a theory that with, advancements in science, we have  measured the actual amount of warming that CO2 is causing...................and it's only 50% of what we thought and only 50% of what the model projections that we use show. Which completely explains why the models have been too warm for the past 20+ years. 

3. Sadly, they not only refused to recognize this, the response has been the opposite..........to make up that its worse than they thought(when its not been as bad) In fact the last 40 years have featured the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years-it's not about science, its about scaring people to think there is a climate crisis so that they can tax fossil fuels, redistribute  wealth and re-calibrate the economic systems so that we have sustainable development under global socialism and the Green New Deal. 

Here's how to find all these studies to see for yourselves the massive benefits of CO2  elevated to 3 different levels(mostly to +300 ppm = 700 total ppm) for every plant.

Out of all the different groups, farmers should be able to appreciate the benefits of climate change the most. 

However, how often do you read about 25% of the increase in soybean yields being attributed to the increase in CO2?

Never.............except here. We are to believe its all from technology. None of you guys know that climate change and the increase in CO2 causing it, are massive contributors to your bin busting crops. 

How do we really know CO2 is making this sort of a contribution(obviously, we have the mostly favorable/drought free weather observations) where is the proof about the CO2?

Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in  CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production. 

We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of  studies that held everything else constant, except CO2.

Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tells us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants. The only thing that was changed in these studies was the CO2 level. 

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 and go to it based on 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

Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air's CO2 Concentration:

For a more detailed description of this table, click here.

Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]

Statistics                                                                                                                                                  

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. 

A very rough estimate for the increase in CO2 is something like +1% in plant growth for every 5ppm increase in CO2 but it varies a great deal from plant to plant. The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 413 ppm is +133 ppm which would equate to an increase of around 27%.

The increase in growth would be greatest at the lowest levels of CO2(at 280 ppm, plants were in CO2 starvation mode) but they would continue in most plants to close to  1,000 ppm. The studies done above that increased CO2 by 600 ppm would have elevated them to close to 1,000 ppm.  You will note that going higher than +900 ppm. which would be over 1,300,  caused yields to start dropping.

It's extremely unlikely that CO2 levels will ever get close to going up another 300 ppm, at 700 ppm let alone to the even more beneficial level (for some plants) of 600 ppm higher, at 1,000 ppm. Going to 900 ppm higher, in the studies, establishes the level at which the benefits stop.

One downside to this big increase in plant growth from the increase in CO2 is that homeowners have needed to cut their lawns more frequently compared to a few decades ago (-:

Seriously, it means lawns, gardens, landscaping and all plants do better.

The optimal CO₂ concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species

https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3

Wheat is one of the world most important food crops:

The optimal atmospheric CO₂ concentration for the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674

Abstract

This study examined the optimal atmospheric CO₂ concentration of the CO₂fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat with growth chambers where the CO₂ concentration was controlled at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 ppm respectively. I found that initial increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration dramatically enhanced winter wheat growth through the CO₂ fertilization effect. However, this CO₂ fertilization effect was substantially compromised with further increase in CO₂ concentration, demonstrating an optimal CO₂ concentration of 889.6, 909.4, and 894.2 ppm for aboveground, belowground, and total biomass, respectively, and 967.8 ppm for leaf photosynthesis.

metmike: Currently, we have around 413 ppm  of CO2 and will never get close to the optimal level of this beneficial gas for wheat, absurdly referred to as pollution for political agenda. If we are concerned about life on the planet, including food for human life, we should be trying to INCREASE CO2, not cut it.

metmike: Now let's show you how mainstream climate science lies to you, twisting facts to try to make you think that people who believe in the real law of photosynthesis and can prove the benefits for plants, just don't understand climate change.

Not only do I understand climate change but I understand it enough to prove the bull about  the fake climate crisis using AUTHENTIC science.

Here is supposedly a climate science authority, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. I had a subscription to the magazine for 20 years. They still have some wonderful science but they have taken on the role of cheerleader for the fake climate crisis, instead of applying the scientific method. Instead, they bash and try to discredit those of us who practice the scientific method. Let's expose the fraudulence of this position from the perspective of plants. Keep in mind that as an atmospheric scientist, I apply this to the affects of weather/climate and CO2 on crop conditions and yields for a living IN THE REAL WORLD. 

Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

1. Scientific American: " Still, research shows plants “get some benefits early on from higher CO₂, but that [benefit] starts to saturate” after the gas reaches a certain level, Moore says—adding, “The more CO₂ you have, the less and less benefit you get."

metmike: We have thousands of plant studies to go with the 2 above on grasses and wheat(that continue with benefits to 900 ppm). I showed you how to get all of them earlier here: https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/#62787

 Most plants keep the benefits coming up to 1,000 ppm. which is 400ppm higher than we will ever get. At the current 413 ppm we are not even close to being saturated. If we ever somehow got to 600 ppm, the benefits would still be far from saturated. 

1. Scientific American is wrong/misleading here.

2. Scientific American: “Even with the benefit of CO₂ fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects(on yields),” she says.

metmike: So far, we've had 1 deg. C of warming in the REAL WORLD. Let's just ask the crops how they feel about that warming (-:

Hey corn, show us your yields below,  during the global warming/climate change of the last 100 years( +1 deg. C, and +115 ppm CO2).

http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2014/10/corn-questions-from-food-inc-worksheet.html

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html

How about you soybeans for the last 30 years? 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php

                                    metmike: Thank you row crops. It's clear that in addition to technology and the increase in CO2 that  climate change  is still massively adding to our production and not taking away from it despite us being told for over 30 years that climate would severely hurt crop yields.

2. Scientific American is wrong again and has had it backwards so far on this.

3. Scientific American: "On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO₂ also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants."  

metmike:  Are they not aware of technology? Farmers have effective means for controlling weeds. Of course they know that but they need to perpetuate the false narrative.........."climate change is bad for all good life but the same conditions of climate change........are  somehow good for bad life." 

The fact is that climate change is good............for all life because we are having a climate optimum..........for all life........not a climate crisis/emergency. 

Sponsored: Six Steps to Effective Weed Control

https://www.agriculture.com/crops/sponsored-six-steps-to-effective-weed-control

3. Scientific American is  (intentionally misleading) about the affects of climate change.

4.  Scientific American: Rising CO₂’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO₂ levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO₂ levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) 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, according to Meyers.

metmike: This one is taking something with a very small grain of truth and intentionally spinning it into something completely bogus. Given the choice, would you like to have 100 lbs of food with all the micronutrients or 140 lbs of food that have a small fraction less of a couple of micronutrients? 1.4 billion would lose 3.8% of their iron they claim? How about............if we went back to the old climate at 1 Deg. C cooler and 115 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere, 1.4 billion people on this planet would DIE because that climate did not support the yields and world food production that the beneficial climate change and increasing CO2 are causing and will continue to cause. Applying their principle/line of thinking, it would be great to cut crop yields in half so that those much smaller crops, will have slightly higher micronutrient levels(which would be true of course). Forget that a couple billion people would starve. What matters is that before they ran out of food and died, the food they ate had 3.8% more iron/micronutrients in it!

4. Scientific American embarrasses themselves being wrong here.

5. Scientific American: "Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO₂ might offer plant life." 

metmike: They keep telling us that drought is increasing...........as it keeps NOT increasing. Many droughts today, are from human caused climate change....they say.  The same/similar droughts in the past were all natural. Natural droughts just don't happen anymore.  As it turns out, global warming increases the temperature in the Pacific Ocean and increases El Nino's that INCREASE precipitation in the US and help to protect us from droughts in many places. This is why the US cornbelt has had the least amount of drought, during the last 30 years(just 1 major drought in 2012) in recorded history.........not in spite of climate change but because of it. Global cooling and La Nina's are what increase droughts!

Last drought of 2012?  Started with the La Nina-cool waters in the East/Central Tropical Pacific. 

Previous major drought in 1988? Caused by a similar La Nina-cool waters in the same place. Global warming can't cause La Nina's. It's affect is the opposite.......more El Nino's.......LESS not more droughts in the US. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/21/activists-hope-that-fake-news-about-droughts-will-win/

"Interesting graph – Fraction of the Globe in Drought: 1982-2012"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/interesting-graph-fraction-of-the-globe-in-drought-1982-2012/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

metmike: Instead of destroying the planet, climate change is greening it up. Even greening the deserts up!

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

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

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.

More evidence to support this FACT:

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2

Thanks to climate change, the Arctic is turning green

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/27/its-official-humans-are-making-the-earth-much-greener/?utm_term=.b98fa16945c3

metmike: You want drought? I'll show you drought(and heat). We all remember stories about the Dust Bowl, when much of an entire decade featured widespread drought across the US............in the old climate. Total crop failures for consecutive years.........because of the climate. BTW, increasing CO2 increases plants drought tolerance(makes them more water efficient)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/nasa-study-finds-1934-had-worst-drought-of-last-thousand-years/

The map below is the drought index in 1934. This was one of the worst times during a drought that lasted for much of that decade. It was not permanent climate change and more of a freak weather phenomena. Human's poor farming strategies in those days did make things worse but today's climate change makes a drought lasting that long much LESS likely to happen.

Can you imagine if we had this going on today?

NASA study finds 1934 had worst drought of last thousand years

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/56668/#56673

https://www.nasa.gov/history/nasa-study-finds-1934-had-worst-drought-of-last-thousand-years/

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

• Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895–2015
     
   
   This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2015. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. Interpretation: An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value.

5. This point of theirs was just repeating part of the same thing earlier in the article..........and they are wrong again. This time, we show even more data. After 30 years of using busted model equations on computers that simulate too much warmth and droughts that are not showing up ......but they keep repeating the same science..................fiction. The same wrong stuff for 30 years because they won't look at what's really happening.

Another study that projects the global greening to continue thru the end of the century:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/47705/

The scientists have now established the planet is greener than it has been in the early 1980s. Forecast up until the year 2100 show the planet will likely become even greener.

Global warming: Greening is expected to carry on until the end of the century (Image: SHILONG P et al.)

Climate models project the West Coast to get wetter because of climate change.

Warmer tropical Pacific=more El Nino's = more preciptation for the US =less drought

This is part of why the Cornbelt has had the best growing conditions in recorded history the past 3 decades and least amount of drought during that time frame. This is not despite climate change but it's BECAUSE of the benefits of climate change. 

California projected to get wetter through this century

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-california-wetter-century.html

In addition: Increasing CO2 causes plants to be more drought tolerant(they don't need to open their stomata as wide to get CO2, since its more concentrated in the air........ which results in less transpiration(water loss).

They also do better with heat at higher CO2 levels:

Buy the Truth

and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding

Photosynthesis and CO2 Enrichment

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

The effect of CO2 concentration on photosynthetic rate at constant temperature is shown below for C3 and C4 crops.

All this would  obviously make sense to everybody but it gets questioned and in fact NOT believed because of this one unanswered question in people's minds.

Why would people who are only trying to save the planet make this stuff up and what would they have to gain from deceiving us?

AWWW, c'mon metmike,  you might be thinking......you can't tell me that you think that Scientific American, Time magazine, National Geographic,  the MSM and most of the world's governments and many of  the scientists that work for them are in on this fake climate crisis.  That sounds like conspiracy theory stuff. 

I'm not just thinking it.............I'm knowing it. Here is some of the indisputable evidence:

Go to this link and scroll down for the answer:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62460/

If you are really serious about being educated on this, you can read some of these discussions/articles:

                Climate Reality discussions            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/

As a rule of thumb, for every 5 parts/million that we increase the CO2 in the air, plant growth increases around 1%.

The increase from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, means an increase of 135 ppm and an average increase in plant growth of 27% from just the added CO2(climate change had added to that in more places then subtracted from it)

There is a wide variation from plant to plant.

Woody stemmed plants like trees have seen growth increases of over +50% over previous rates, when the plants in our world were suffering from CO2 starvation 100+ years ago, before the Industrial Revolution. Forest regrowth after cutting them down for timber has been astounding.

C3 plants, which include most crops are much better at using the CO2 than C4 crops and see rates higher than +27% from the increase in CO2 of 135 ppm.

See the studies above that prove it irrefutably. 

It's 100% authentic science..............the truth. Scientific truths can always be proven. The absolute proof is shown in this thread.

We are obviously NOT being told the truth are we.

When was the last time you heard any of the gatekeepers of the information communicating or telling any of us this information?

About............never.

Even if there was a climate crisis for humans(there isn't) why invent a climate crisis for other forms of life that are begging for much more CO2?

Study: Global Warming Restricting Agricultural Productivity

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/02/study-global-warming-restricting-agricultural-productivity/

metmike:

This is jaw dropping ignorance. The optimal level of CO2 for most plants and crops is around 900 PPM, more than double the current level.........as shown by thousands of studies on plants.

If we were to send the atmosphere back into a time machine and have it return to pre industrial age levels, 1 billion people would starve to death within 3 years because of the plunge in crop yields/food production. Prices would more than triple as we rationed excessive demand for the insufficient supplies of most crops/food. 

The greatest global warming is happening in the coldest places, especially during the coldest times of year.  When the planet stops massively greening............THEN, we will know that conditions have become unfavorable.

Authentic climate science, biology and agronomy tell us that we are a long way from that happening. 

Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!                                       

                Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.    

        https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/

Photosynthesis: Limiting Factors Affecting the Rate of Photosynthesis - (GCSE Biology)

• Limiting factors affect the rate of a reaction. A limiting factor is a condition, that when in shortage, slows down the rate of a reaction. Light intensity, carbon dioxide concentration and temperature are limiting factors for the rate of photosynthesis. They all affect the rate of the photosynthetic reaction, but in different ways.

 https://studymind.co.uk/notes/limiting-factors-affecting-the-rate-of-photosynthesis/

Carbon Dioxide

• The higher the CO₂ concentration, the higher the rate until a certain point. As you increase the concentration of carbon dioxide (the reactant), the reaction is driven forwards.
• At high CO₂ concentration, rate levels off. until you reach a point at which the enzymes required are saturated. At this point, the carbon dioxide is no longer a limiting factor.

Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html

Generally, doubling ambient CO₂ level (i.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield. Plants with a C₃ photosynthetic pathway (geranium, petunia, pansy, aster lily and most dicot species) have a 3-carbon compound as the first product in their photosynthetic pathway, thus are called C₃ plants and are more responsive to higher CO₂ concentration than plants having a C₄ pathway (most of the grass species have a 4-carbon compound as the first product in their photosynthetic pathway, thus are called C4 plants). An increase in ambient CO₂ to 800-1000 ppm can increase yield of C₃ plants up to 40 to 100 percent and C₄ plants by 10 to 25 percent while keeping other inputs at an optimum level. Plants show a positive response up to 700 to need of 1,800 parts per million, but higher levels of CO₂ may cause plant damage

Figure 1. Relation between CO₂ concentration and rate of plant growth. Source: Roger H. Thayer, Eco Enterprises, hydrofarm.com. Redrawn by Vince Giannotti.

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.

A freak 1870s climate event caused drought across three continents

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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. 

Little Ice Age

 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.

Human Deaths from Hot and Cold Temperatures and Implications for Climate Change

 https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change

Given the large number of deaths affected by temperature, there is significant public and scientific interest in the impact of global warming on human mortality.

• Uncomfortable outdoor temperatures are a contributing factor in 1-10% of all premature deaths.
  
  
• For the majority of the time, most cities have colder temperatures than their local optimum temperature, or the temperature that minimizes the death rate in that area.
  
  
• It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6 million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and 0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.
  
  
• The population of any given city is highly acclimated to local climatological temperatures. For example, the local optimum temperature has been found to be as much as 18°C colder in cold climates than it is in hot climates (Executive Summary Fig. 1).
  
  
• Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from 2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in heat deaths).
  
  
• Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming (Executive Summary Fig. 2).

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

Hey Mike,

 That study of deaths from extreme cold vs extreme heat that you linked to was well-written. I checked the source, The Breakthrough Institute, and found that their bias is fairly limited (just slightly to moderately right of center) and they were rated as “highly factual”. Thus, though I expect net negative feedback, I decided to post about it at American here:

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/52434-occasional-thoughts-on-climate-change/?do=findComment&comment=7287721

Thanks a ton, Larry.

I greatly value your opinions and contributions on this topic.

 You’re welcome, Mike. Keep in mind that I didn’t post that I feel that CC has been good. I merely said that effects so far haven’t ALL been bad such as deaths from temp extremes through 2019 having dropped.

 The first reply (from Liberty Bell) is totally civil though it deemphasizes my point about not ALL effects having been bad through 2019. He’s always been very anti-fossil fuel companies. (I know your feelings are opposite but don’t want to get into that) and thus the higher pollution mention. I don’t have time to keep going on all points back and forth and the fossil fuel companies, themselves, are irrelevant to the point I was making. Here’s what he said:

“There's other factors associated with this-- for example excessive flooding, more forest fires and higher air pollution.

Add them all up together and you have billion dollar disaster that need to be paid for by lowlifes like Greenskeeper and his kind who don't understand science and the fossil fuel cartels trash like him worships.“

My reply to Liberty Bell, which he has yet to respond to, though he actually gave it a “like”:

 “Thanks for your reply. I know there are major negative factors as I’ve said. I feel that CC is overall clearly a net negative. I’m just saying in the interest of honest discussion that that not every factor has been bad to this point, including deaths from temperature extremes. Like with most things, it isn’t all black and white and I feel it adds credibility to admit this.”

Thanks much, Larry!

I think that we both agree that people's views on this will almost never change. Both sides.

That does NOT apply to you because you have continually shown a willingness to see both sides. Even when we might disagree on some things, which is going to be inevitable because we both see negatives AND positives with man made climate change. There is no way that both of us or anybody for that matter, can give the exact same weighting to each of a dozen different metrics.

For instance, 2 of them are hurricanes and sea level increase vs photosynthesis. If you live along a southern coastline, you are going to massively amplify whats happening to the oceans compared to landlocked people that care more about energy and food supplies/prices. People in mid/high latitudes are greatly benefiting from the warm, hands down. The farther south you live, the less benefits to some negatives.

Most life on this planet doesn't care about hurricanes and seas going up 1 inch/decade, so life, indisputably prefers these conditions vs 100 years ago and the objective, scientific proof is overwhelming.

But billions of people live near coastlines. That matters to developed human civilizations.........and in hurricane alley it matters a great deal.

An honest person would then NOT tell us that the climate crisis is killing the planet because the vast majority of life on the planet is loving climate change.

Every time in the past, when conditions were this warm, scientists called it a climate OPTIMUM and that was at less beneficial levels of CO2!!!

Climate science has been hijacked and definitions redefined. CO2, a gas is now defined as carbon (a solid and something totally different)  pollution.........even though its the building block for all of life.

Do we call H2O,  hydrogen pollution or even hydrogen? No because H2O is something totally different than the gas and single atomic H(hydrogen) .

CO2 and C are 2 totally different things. Black carbon soot(C), which IS pollution is NOT CO2.  Take any molecule or any substance that has a C atom(s) in it. You would never call it carbon. That's retarded ANTI science.

Here's a list of things that have a C in them. While some of them sound scary and many are actual pollutants, we can make the same case for things with an H in them(toxic to humans).

List of compounds with carbon number 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compounds_with_carbon_number_1

+++++++++++++

Hydrogen Compounds

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/hydrogen-compounds

++++++++++++++++++

Atoms, Molecules, and Compounds

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/chemical/chemistry-and-seawater/atoms-molecules-and-compounds

++++++++++++++

The typical response to a point like this from the other side is like you showed. Looking up reasons to defend their opposite position and even make personal attacks against people with the opposite position that go with mischaracterizing them. 

As you know, I get carried away attacking entities that I feel are dishonest or hurting people but try as hard as possible to avoid attacking individuals in a group discussion. 

Sometimes, there's a fine line that the other person defines differently. It can be related to them feeling offended or attacked personally because you are questioning their integrity or intelligence. Yes, that is actually huge.  I'm not perfect in tightrope walking along that fine line and have unintentionally offended people here(sometimes its not my fault and just unavoidable) with views, especially about Trump.

The key at that point is to RECOGNIZE that you offended that person and respect them enough(even if you are positive they are wrong)  to repair the damage with a peace offering and kinds words before it escalates.  Stop the hurt before it has a permanent impact on the relationship.

Funny how climate SCIENCE is so often about politics and human relationships at forums like yours or WUWT. I love WUWT because of some of the great points so often made there by skeptics and will sometimes post stuff from there at MarketForum but on much of it, have the ability to see one sided bias that doesn't make my objective science cut.

I almost hate saying negative stuff about a site, knowing people from there will read it and in our tribalistic world, form the wrong opinion but do it anyway.

They use the + and - signs for the like/dislike response of readers to posts.  I personally can't stand this and when Alex was designing our forum and asking what I thought,  I told him DO NOT INCLUDE THAT at MarketForum. 

1. When there are low to no numbers, it suggests that people are not reading.

2. When there are numbers, it becomes a popularity contest and considering the extreme, hateful and personal attacks that used to take place here, is just an opportunity to MAKE IT WORSE from a group think mentality where a mob can rule and turn the place into an echo chamber. 

As you know, this could easily turn into a MAGA echo chamber except the moderator runs an ANTI echo chamber. 

I also pleaded with him to program the likes/dislikes button so that a person can only vote 1 time and showed him the flaws but he never had them installed. When I took over, I was told it would cost a lot of money to change. 

I will use the likes on this post to show you what I mean on how this could be abused here because we don't limit each person to 1 vote.

WUWT and I assume other places limit the votes to 1 per IP address but most people  have access to multiple IP addresses. When I tether off my Iphone, I get another vote. When I'm at the gym or at the doctor using their internet.........it's another vote each time using their internet if I want to abuse the system. 

++++++++

Speaking of Alex, he didn't reveal this because his presence was pure moderator and not like mine, which has turned it into more of a blog and information service much of the time. But according to Kate(that I haven't heard from since the first year taking over, Alex was extremely liberal.  Even more liberal than her, she said. She also said that the only thing they ever disagreed on was climate change. Alex completely changed his view from reading my posts. 

I had known that he felt that way to some extent because he created special features that highlighted my climate posts. He created a "Climate Talk" category at the old forum and started the "post of the week" that would often feature my climate change posts. 

Alex was a top notch, all around great person, even before he did this but when Kate told me that he completely changed his views from reading my posts, my respect for him for having the ability to practice the scientific method (he was a journalist-Reuters News before retiring) went stratospheric and to this day, hearing about it from Kate has been the best comment of all the comments that anybody has made about my posting.